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

Re: annotating axioms

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:59:03 +0000
Message-Id: <0D5A21E7-D852-4240-A687-9CEE9DCFB0B7@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: achille@us.ibm.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Nov 7, 2007, at 8:36 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 ')' | ....

It sure does:
	entityAnnotation := 'EntityAnnotation' '(' { annotationsForAxiom }  
entity { annotationsForEntity } ')'

But it *doesn't* have a like one for AxiomAnnotation. I think the  
asymmetry bugs folks. It doesn't esp. bother me yet.

> so making annotations be axioms wouldn't magically allow them to have
> annotations themselves.

I presume the production would be:
	'AxiomAnnotation(' {annotationsForAnnotationAxiom} axiom  

In strict analogy to entity annotations.

>   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.

Double eh. Who cares? I mean, is this really an interesting  
consideration? I propose to let axioms exist inside an Annotations()  
construct...is that a similar problem?

> The request should be instead that the grammar for annotations be
> expanded to something like:
> 	annotationByXXX ::= 'Annotation(' { annotation }
> 			    		  annotationURI XXX ')'

This doesn't make sense to me. If anything, the alternative would be  
to reference axioms,e g.,

'AxiomAnnotation(' {annotationsForAnnotationAxiom} axiomRef  

But this forces naming/iding all axioms. Which has been requested but  
is rather tricky.

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 08:59:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC