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

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

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:51:14 +0100
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D825061A-CC49-41C5-A1FD-710C29F7C754@uva.nl>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 13 jan 2008, at 22:07, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> (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.)

I agree fully. The reason I raised the issue was just to make us not  
forget to provide these 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)

Sounds ok by me. That's the least we can do ;)

> 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.)

Note, however that there's a hiatus in the OWL 1.0 deprecation  
mechanism as it only affects named classes and properties and not  
*axioms*. If we do provide the mapping, we will have some form of OWL  
1.0 compatibility, but it will be just as unusable. We must therefore  
decide whether we stay conservative and only map what's there or  
provide the deprecation mapping and *extend* it to cover axiom  
annotations. Such an extension would require, in my view, at least a  
position on the formal meaning of the assertions.

> 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.

Unfortunately I will not be able to make it to the telecon this week,  
but I'm sure you will do fine without me ;) (and, anyway, there's only  
5 minutes scheduled).

Best,

	Rinke


>
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 07:51:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2008 07:51:20 GMT