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

Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:39:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071113.043952.153133291.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: Svatek@vse.cz
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Vojtech Svatek <Svatek@vse.cz>
Subject: Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:44:38 +0100

> Hi Peter,
> 
> (coming back after a delay caused by my own illness plus mailbox crash...)
> 
> You are right that things like 'reified n-ary properties' *can* be modelled
> in different ways (though you only showed one alternative). The question
> however is what *good* modelling practice looks like.
> 
> The notion of 'reified n-ary property' is closely linked to the ontology
> language expressivity, and, consequently, to the core of the
> conceptualisation-coding process. It is not just a very specific feature to
> be included 'in advance' so as to be possibly used by some arcane tools at
> later phase (and thus only deserving to be imported through an ontology
> specifically tailored to the needs of these tools). Maybe there are indeed
> other alternatives to using annotations - I don't stick to this one - but
> that you mentioned is not the right thing IMHO.
> 
> To me, the lack of explicit n-ary properties is, in a way, a deficiency of
> OWL wrt. other languages often used for 'ontological' modelling purposes. I
> understand that complying with DL semantics is critical. On the other hand,
> I believe that simple steps that ease compatibility with other, less
> AI-ambitious modelling languages (such as UML or Topic Maps) in this and
> other respects might improve the perception of OWL by kind-of external
> communitites.
> 
> All such 'pattern-oriented' annotation types I have in mind are, in Bijan's
> terms, 'canIgnore' ones (although I am also interested in e.g. uncertainty
> extensions - but that's another story).
> 
> My plan now is to have a bit of discussion with some 'patterns' guys first,
> offline, and then return with some consolidated proposal. 

Sure, go ahead, but remember, that if there isn't something for the WG
to do, and the WG is about language design, then I don't see how this
useful effort is related to the WG

> Bijan, would it
> be OK if I then add a few bullets to [1] at some point?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Vojtech
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System#Examples

peter
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 09:53:05 GMT

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