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

Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:08:09 +0000
Message-Id: <8F45B548-2F9B-468F-8C31-A4D877AA1036@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Svatek@vse.cz, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

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

A good general principle, but which doesn't seem violataed by this  
discussion since these annotation types could be:
	1)  use/test cases for annotation system design
	2)  proposals for built-in annotations

An obvious example would be so-called "Axiom Closure", e.g., adding  
universals where there are existentials. A very common pattern that  
is getting tools support and one can imagine several annotation  
designs that tools could use. However, there is little technically to  
pick between them and having commonality is better, perhaps, than  
pointless diversity.

We have to balance, of course, issues of bloat (or stifling) with the  
advantages of stability, better tools support, etc. But we have  
several options including producing WG notes to separate  
recommendations to building stuff into the core recommendation.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:08:22 UTC

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