Re: Proposed tweaks to Annotations

On 9 Oct 2008, at 10:53, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hi Bijan,
>
> I take your point on the practical usage of range/domain, thanks. If I
> understand it well, at least this use case does not really care about
> the possible OWL inferences, because separate tools would look at and
> handle annotations anyway.

They certainly don't care about the "integrity constraint" version.  
They usually don't *mind* e.g., getting a contradiction if they stick  
an integer into a string range, but that's not the primary job.

(Indeed, one evil trick is to put a min 0 for some property to  
indicate that that class "can have" such a property. I just cannot  
convince Alan that this doesn't actually do what he thinks it does ;))

> Coming back to the original discussion, Boris showed in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0016.html
>
> that the simple approach (adding, SubAnnotationPropertyOf,
> AnnotationPropertyDomain and AnnotationPropertyRange into the func.  
> spec
> with an obvious mapping to the existing RDF vocabulary) might lead  
> to a
> semantic divergence between OWL DL and OWL Full. What your use case
> suggests, though, that users might not really care too much, because
> they would not consider the OWL reasoning on these anyway... Ie, we  
> can
> just live with that.

Yep.

Cheers,
Bijan.