W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Annotation entailment!

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:47:18 +0100
Message-ID: <468DF386.2060808@hpl.hp.com>
To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL list <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

A helpful use case.

OWL 1.0 annotations do *not* do this.

OWL 1.1 axiom annotations attempt to do this, I think.

This use case would also be addressed by simple (XML) comments in the 
RDF/XML source, or the N3 source.


Matthew Pocock wrote:
> Sorry - I am confused now. Time for a concrete use-case. I have found myself 
> converting human-readable specs into OWL more than once. It is natural to 
> want to annotate parts of the OWL as comming from parts of the spec 
> documents. The granularity for this is at the owl1.1 axiom level, annotating 
> these with the location in the source document that states the knowledge they 
> capture. I'm usually quite careful to use axioms in the OWL that are as close 
> as possible a direct translation of what is stated in the original spec, even 
> if there are other potentially more OWL-friendly ways to say it. The 
> semantics of the annotation I had assumed where that they applied to that 
> axiom, not to the set of items with identical interpretations.
> In the light of what is said below, should I not be doing this with 
> annotations? To be clear, my intent was to capture a logical constraint, and 
> *that exact* way of stating it, and associating this with the source 
> reference.
> Matthew (perplexed)
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> Summary: why is this an issue? What are you trying to annotate, and why?
>> Why are you using this mechanism?
>> ======================
>> The question is why are you using rdfs:label or eg:lastModifiedOn or
>> whatever rather than <!--  XML Comments -->.
>> If you want an annotation that is entirely invisible, except in an
>> editor, the XML specification provides that mechanism:
>> <!--
>> -->
>> If you use some other mechanism, then it is in order to get additional
>> functionality.
>> The functionality that OWL DL annotations provide is:
>> - the annotation is part of the RDF graph
>> - some basic semantics is provided.
>> - the annotation is regarded as an annotation of the interpretation of
>> the items in the graph, rather than an annotation of the graph syntax.
>> i.e.
>> There is a mechanism to annotate the XML syntax: XML comments.
>> There is a mechanism to annotate the individuals properties and classes
>> in the ontology.
>> There is no mechanism to annotate the graph syntax.
>> ===
>> If a mechanism for annotating the graph syntax is desired, one method
>> would be to create a new annotation property eg:annotatedGraph that
>> takes an RDF/XML literal as its object.
>> If your ontology is a set of triples O with name U, and O includes
>> U rdf:type owl:Ontology
>> then set
>> O' = O union
>> { U eg:annotatedGraph X^rdf:XMLLiteral }
>> where X is a serialization of O, including appropriate XML comments.
>> This provides a simple mechanism allowing annotations of the graph as a
>> graph, (i.e. reading in, and writing it out does not loose the comments,
>> but the comments have [no/vanishing little] semantic force).
>> Jeremy

Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 07:47:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC