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

what to do for suggested annotations (was Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:23:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071113.052317.166729603.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Svatek@vse.cz, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:08:09 +0000

> 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
> [snip]
> >> 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
> [snip]
> A good general principle, but which doesn't seem violated 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.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Hmm, yes, a WG note would be a good outlet for not only suggested
annotation properties, but also for things like visual syntaxes, *provided
that* they don't take up WG resources that could be put to better use in
creating the core documents.  

It seems to me that some of the non-technical documents would also fit
as WG notes, but that might violate the WG charter.  Also, wouldn't it
be easier to update WG notes later on, for example as an activity of an
interest group?  This seems to me to be another advantage of notes over
rec docs.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:36:31 UTC

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