Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13

The original Rich Annotations proposal
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System
states that it is motivated by
ISSUE-12: Annotations of multi-triple axioms
ISSUE-16: Entity annotations status
ISSUE-20: Annotate declarations
ISSUE-32: Complex annotations
ISSUE-40: Extra-logical features
and the issues in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0398.html
which are 
1) Development tool metadata
2) Deployment tool metadata
3) Must understand language extensions
4) May ignore language extensions

Certainly the proposal does not address the second last of these nine,
but the others are at least arguably addressed.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:42:23 -0400

> Hello Peter,
> 
> This doesn't meet the requirements that motivated the original rich
> annotation proposal, such as allowing domain and range restrictions on
> annotations, or subProperty relationships between them. 
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > The status is
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0060.html
> >
> > My view is that that is all that is required in the OWL 2 specification.
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
> > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:15:56 -0400
> >
> >> On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:43:40 -0400
> >>>
> >>>> General Discussion (40 minutes)
> >>>>    Annotations: Plan B.
> >>>
> >>> What is Plan B?
> >>
> >> That is the question. I would like to confer on the status of your and
> >> Bijan's work on the annotation proposal, and make plans in the case that
> >> it is not ready, as we discussed at the F2F. I anticipate would discuss
> >> idea for annotations that fall short of the rich annotation proposal but
> >> address some of the requirements our users have articulated. We had
> >> postponed that pending seeing what the resolution of rich annotations
> >> was.
> >>
> >> -Alan
> >>
> >>> If we are going to discuss Annotations yet again, I think that
> >> pointers
> >>> to the proposals up for discussion are needed, and that proposals that
> >>> have already been discussed should have evolved to be considered for
> >>> re-discussion.  The only activity I see in the WG related to
> >> annotations
> >>> is my message from Monday
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0060.html
> >>> which contains a proposal to close ISSUE-16 by adding annotations on
> >>> annotations.
> >>>
> >>> peter
> >>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 19:25:17 UTC