W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

RE: ISSUE-143 (profileannotation): No Annotations in any of the profiles?

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:36:55 +0200
To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c900f4$6dc35d70$1e01a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

Please note that all profiles have been specified as a diff -- that is, we specified only the difference in the productions. Because
of that, there is no mention of the EntityAnnotation production, because this production hasn't changed in any of the profiles.
Furthermore, this production is referenced only from the Axiom production, and that hasn't changed either; as a consequence,
EntityAnnotation hasn't been mentioned at all. This, however, doesn't reflect the original intent: annotations are harmless and are
to be allowed in all of the profiles.

There was a slight bug in the sense that the new axioms didn't allow for { annotation } on them. This was an editorial error: I was
concerned here with the logical properties of the languages and have simply forgotten about annotations. I've fixed that now; here
is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=11243&oldid=10782


Please note also that, once the profiles have been finalized, we'll put full grammars for all the profiles into the appendix, and I
hope that this will avoid such confusion in the future.

Regards,

	Boris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 18 August 2008 00:52
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-143 (profileannotation): No Annotations in any of the profiles?
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-143 (profileannotation): No Annotations in any of the profiles?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/143
> 
> Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
> On product:
> 
> Does use of a Label or Comment in EL++, cause the ontology to become OWL-DL. Ditto OWL-RL -> OWL
> Full?
> 
> If so, this is undesirable.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 05:38:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 August 2008 05:38:38 GMT