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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20071031.043804.106598690.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: vit.novacek@deri.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk

From: "Novacek, Vit" <vit.novacek@deri.org>
Subject: RE: comments on RDF mapping
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:01:29 -0000

> 
> 
> 
> > Ok, but then why not just have an annotation properties like
> > ex:time-stamp and ex:version-introducted?  
> 
> Well, maybe I've missed something in this remark, but I meant 
> rather to have these "finer-grained" annotation properties
> in the OWL vocabulary and namespace in order to make sure
> that whoever around the world uses these features, uses the
> same vocabulary to express them (especially useful for the
> uncertainty representation case, if we want to allow for 
> possible re-use of "uncertain" ontologies). They would bear a 
> kind of universally attributed semantics then, however, this 
> semantics would not be intended to mix with the model-theoretic 
> semantics of OWL at all...
> 
> It would of course be quite tricky to decide the respective 
> set of these annotation property extensions in order to keep 
> them intuitive enough and practical at the same time. Moreover, 
> the set should be as small as possible, general enough to cover 
> as much use cases as possible and specific enough to restrict the 
> application of particular annotation types... Tricky, but perhaps 
> not impossible and maybe even worthwhile...
> 
> Cheers,
> Vit
> 

OK, so you are just asking for more annotation properties, similar to
owl:versionInfo.  Correct?

peter
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 08:47:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT