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

Agenda amendment re: ISSUE-92, ISSUE-91, and ISSUE-90

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:07:38 +0000
Message-Id: <44DDFE0B-7FB6-4320-B48B-0D5B7CAFA65A@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

(Prepping for the call...)

I think ISSUE-92, by itself, is editorial. I.e., as Boris points out:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0247.html
it's just an error. (I.e., some missing mappings.)

ISSUE-91 itself only points out that there are missing mappings. The  
discussion on ISSUE-91 takes us to ISSUE-90:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/90
wherein the *semantics* of some of the builtin annotation properties  
are discussed.

So I propose that we resolve 91 and 92 by:
	1) adding a mapping for the ontology element (ISSUE-92)
	2) adding mappings for the ontology and deprecation etc. properties  
to Annotations (ISSUE-91)

This gets us roughly back to OWL 1.0 except now these sorts of  
assertion explicitly have no formal meaning at all and no prose  
describing their intent.

(If the annotation spaces proposal gets incorporated, we can revisit  
exactly where these annotations should go.)

I propose we spend the telecon time discussing whether we want to  
change the formal meaning status quo ante for these assertions, with  
the homework to be to read Rinke's very interesting page on ontology  
versioning:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Ontology_Versions
and discuss it on list.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:07:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:07:59 GMT