W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-32 complex annotations

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:41:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071203.044122.50735151.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-32 complex annotations
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:25:47 +0000

> 
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > 
> > On 25 Nov 2007, at 10:52, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >> ISSUE-32 requests annotation values that are objects as allowed in OWL
> >> 1.0.  Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem, but it appears to me
> >> that OWL 1.1 already allows annotation values to be OWL entities, which
> >> provides the same facility as in OWL 1.0.  I thus don't see that any
> >> further extension to annotations is needed to solve this issue.
> > 
> > This appears to me to be a non-issue, i.e., it asks for something that 
> > is already there. Unless I hear to the contrary I will REJECT and CLOSE it.
> > 
> > Ian
> > 
> > 
> 
> I speak to the contrary.
> 
> Here is an example that is an OWL 1.0 DL and is not in OWL 1.1 DL as 
> currently defined.
> 
> eg:ap rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
> rdfs:label rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
> eg:c rdf:type owl:Class .
> eg:c eg:ap _:x .
> _:x rdf:type owl:Thing .
> _:x rdfs:label "No longer allowed." .
> 
> 
> Hence OWL 1.1 does not provide the same facility as in OWL 1.0, and 
> there is an issue to address.
> 
> Jeremy
> 

Isn't this covered by the anonymous individuals issue (ISSUE-3)?

peter
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 10:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT