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

Re: question about annotations

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4798646A.4000403@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> If I put these two triples through an OWL 1.0 'make it DL patch-up' 
>> program, I would get
>> eg:dp rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
> Maybe.  I don't know if there are tools that do this patch.

I wasn't suggesting that there are .... it's a tool in a thought 
experiment - Such experiments often come with better equipment than a 
real lab!

>> If I put these through an OWL 1.1 (with punning) 'make it DL patch-up' 
>> maybe I should get
>> eg:dp owl:DataProperty .
> Maybe again.   This would be more likely, I think.
>> with eg:c being punned as a class and an individual.
>> This would suggest that no annotations are needed at all in OWL 1.1 - 
>> and then I get confused because we have discussions about annotations.
> Well, this depends on what you think annotations are supposed to be.   
> One view is that annotations are extra-logical fluff added to
> ontologies, and thus are still needed.  In this view the fact that
> annotations were turned into facts in OWL Full was a very unfortunate
> consequence of the "triples uber alles" RDF view of life, the universe,
> and everything.  Removing the connection between annotations and facts
> removes a silly aspect of OWL that only gets in the way.
> Another view is that the major use for annotations is to add (logical)
> information to classes.  In this view it would be natural to remove
> annotation properties because they were only added to allow this sort of
> information to (uneasily) exist in OWL DL.

That's helpful, thank you.

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:12:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC