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

annotating axioms

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:36:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071107.033656.239598930.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: achille@us.ibm.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:19:47 +0000

> On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Achille Fokoue wrote:


> > 1.  It is not clear to me from your proposal whether *all*  
> > annotations are now considered axioms – not just EntityAnnotation  
> > in the current spec.
> The current proposal punted on this.
> >  I agree with jlc415 who reported issue 16 (http://www.w3.org/2007/ 
> > OWL/tracker/issues/16) that "either all annotations should be  
> > axioms, or none should". Having all annotations as axioms makes it  
> > possible to annotate them. 


> This could be easily incorporated. I just hacked the minimal changes  
> to the grammar I could to get the proposal done as soon as possible.  
> So this seems a great addition.

I'm not sure what the rationale for making all annotations be axioms, as
in ISSUE-16.  It's not as if the grammar has a production like:

	axiom ::= 'AxiomAnnotation(' annotation axiom ')' | ....

so making annotations be axioms wouldn't magically allow them to have
annotations themselves.  It also seems a bit strange to have axioms
include other things that are themselves axioms.  Right now axioms are
all top-level constructs in an ontology.

The request should be instead that the grammar for annotations be
expanded to something like:

	annotationByXXX ::= 'Annotation(' { annotation }
			    		  annotationURI XXX ')'


> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 08:51:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT