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

Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:25:52 -0500
Message-Id: <2897A974-BC3A-41B7-AEA2-3AEA46BAA491@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 3) Language extensions with "must understand".
> In C&P's implementation of probabilisitc extensions to OWL based on  
> the P-SHOQ formalism,
> 	<http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/category/semweb/probabilistic- 
> reasoning/>
> we used axiom annotations to turn subclass axioms into conditional  
> constraints (for example). A system cannot *correctly* ignore those  
> annotations, but it was a very convenient way to extend the  
> language (although one could argue that it was potentially  
> misleading): We didn't have to change any basic parsers or editors;  
> it worked in all syntaxes for free, etc.
> In general, better support for extensions is helpful.

I'm a little worried about this, one, in the sense that the file  
advertises itself as OWL, but really isn't (it has different semantics).

I'd worry that we would arrive at a situation in which there were all  
sorts of little "must understand" bits from different people, leading  
to one of two situations - either all should be rejected by  
reasoners, or the "what the heck, it's just a couple of axioms, let's  
ignore it".

Would an alternative to define a different sort of file that has a  
way of embedding OWL, and then teach tools to use those files too?

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 17:26:09 UTC

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