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

Re: ISSUE-16 (entity annotations)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:54:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080123.075455.123478729.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hoekstra@uva.nl
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Rich Annotations is a much more involved proposal, because it includes
much more in the way of semantics.  I guess that the whole range of
annotation proposals could come up together, but I would hope that there
would be distinction between syntax changes and semantics changes.

peter

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-16 (entity annotations)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:48:35 +0100

> 2a for me as well...
> 
> I suppose this issue will come up when we discuss Rich Annotations?
> 
> -Rinke
> 
> On 14 jan 2008, at 19:26, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:
> 
> >
> > i would use option 2a if available and i would not be able to encode  
> > some of the things i need to encode for my knowledge provenance work  
> > if i can not annotate annotations.
> > Thus, also, if there is a vote, i vote for 2a.
> >
> > deborah
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> In ISUE-16, Jeremy points out an asymmetry in the treatement of
> >> annotations in OWL 1.1.
> >>
> >> There are two kinds of top-level "annotations" in OWL 1.1, 1/  
> >> Entity Annotations, which are axioms
> >> 2/ Annotations on Ontologies, which are not axioms
> >>
> >> I agree that this asymmetry is not ideal.
> >>
> >> There appear to be two ways to recover symmetry here:
> >>
> >> 1/ Make Entity Annotations not be axioms, which, to retain symmetry,
> >>   would probably end up not allowing annotations on entity  
> >> annotations
> >>   (but leaving annotations on entities), so one could say:
> >>
> >>   EntityAnnotation(OWLClass(Person)
> >>     Label("People") Comment("The Class of People"))
> >>
> >>   but *not*
> >>
> >>   EntityAnnotation(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel- 
> >> Schneider")
> >>     OWLClass(Person) Label("People") Comment("The Class of People"))
> >>
> >> 2/ Make Annotations on Ontologies be axioms, which would probably  
> >> allow
> >>   annotations on entity annotation axioms, and also allow annotations
> >>   on ontology annotations, as in
> >>
> >>   Ontology(<http://foo.ex/foo>
> >>     Comment(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider")
> >>             "An ontology about nothing at all"))
> >>
> >> 2a/ The second option could be extended to allow annotations on any
> >>    annotation, as in
> >>   EntityAnnotation(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel- 
> >> Schneider")
> >>     OWLClass(Person)
> >>     Label(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider")  
> >> "People")
> >>     Comment(Annotation(creatorsName "Bijan Parsia") "The Class of  
> >> People"))
> >>    I think that I would vote for option 2a, even though it is the  
> >> largest
> >> changed to the current situation.
> >>
> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> >> Bell Labs Research
> >>
> >> PS:  I make not claims about the suitability of the actual  
> >> annotations
> >>     in the examples above.
> >>
> >> PPS: I expect that there is a missing "not" after "should" in the
> >>     description of the issue in the issue list.
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 13:24:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 13:24:58 GMT