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

RE: A proposal for resolving the punning issue (ISSUE-114) + a related proposal for a tweak to the annotation system

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:03:28 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F1877A6AEF7348B7A8108B696D3FD14F@wolf>

Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 October 2008 16:59
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A proposal for resolving the punning issue (ISSUE-114) + a related proposal for a tweak
> to the annotation system
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Boris Motik
> <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Still a bit more. What if a:Aquilla is an individual in 0. What if it
> >> is also punned as a Class in O?
> >> Would URI be an "object" in the sort of object model that you envision
> >> the metamodel specifying?
> >> Should a tool display the raw URI as the value of the annotation? Or
> >> all views of the URI?
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this: the URI a:Aquilla is not an individual in O because it is not used
> as such in any of the axioms. In this new annotation system, the usage of a URI in an annotation
> would not make this URI an individual.
> 
> Hi Boris, I asked: "What if a:Aquilla is an individual in 0"
> That is, if there *was* somewhere else the individual view is used in
> the ontology.
> 

Well then, a:Aquilla would be returned in an answer to the question "Give me all the individuals".

> > URI is already a class in the metamodel. Entities such ash Individual, Class, etc. do not subclass
> URI; rather, they reuse URI by  composition. This seems to be more appropriate: you have one and only
> one URI, but different views use it.
> 
> > I guess a tool should display the URI as an annotation value. But this is probably getting into too
> much detail: we wouldn't specify this in our spec, would we? I guess the best we can do is give an
> example of the sort I gave above.
> 
> I agree that it shouldn't be in the spec, but I think we should have
> at least some story. It might be something worth mentioning in the
> primer or other user facing document. The case I am considering is
> when the URI has multiple views, and a tool such as protege has to
> enable comfortable interaction with the annotation value URI.
> 

In the Structural Spec I can stipulate that the resulting thing is a URI and not an entity (view). I can do this in an example.

Regards,

	Boris

> Regards,
> Alan
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 16:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 October 2008 16:04:09 GMT