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.

> 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.

Regards,
Alan