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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:27:04 +0000
Message-ID: <47273F38.7090605@hpl.hp.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> My understanding is that there is a requirement to be able to create 
> properties attached to classes that have more inference support than is 
> currently possible using annotation properties. For example, it is 
> desirable that an "annotation property" for an editing time stamp should 
> have a range that is xsd:date, or, for SKOS, we would like  to be create 
> subproperties of rdfs:label.
> Alan Rector articulated these cases initially, IIRC. I suspect they are 
> recorded somewhere amongst  the OWLED stuff.

If I have understood correctly, these requirements are about annotation 
properties, in particular in the way they interact with tools such as 

It is clearly helpful for editors if they know what sort of values an 
annotation property may have, and whether or not an annotation property 
is intended as a label.

For maximal interop with RDFS, using the RDFS methodology (i.e. 
rdfs:range, and rdfs:label) is good.

My understanding (or perhaps misunderstanding) is that there is no 
theoretical problem with extending the annotation semantics to include 
such parts of RDFS. I (mis)understand that it is more a preference by 
the DL implementors, and/or editors of the semantics to not give 
annotations any semantics at all.

Note this use case seems to only be about punning annotation properties 
with data properties.

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 14:27:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC