W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

JC5 and possibly replacing owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090513.141121.257099877.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
One proposal that is being floated is to use some other name for
owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object.

Remember that this only shows up in annotation of annotations, as in

T(y) T(AP) T(av) .
_:x rdf:type owl:Annotation .
_:x owl:subject T(y) .
_:x owl:predicate T(AP) .
_:x owl:object T(av) .
TANN(annotation1, _:x)
...
TANN(annotationn, _:x) 

and annotation of (some) axioms, as in

s p xlt .
_:x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
_:x owl:subject s .
_:x owl:predicate p .
_:x owl:object xlt .
TANN(annotation1, _:x)
...
TANN(annotationm, _:x) 


We could, perhaps use something like
  owl:annotatedSubject
  owl:annotatedPredicate
  owl:annotatedObject
but this seems to be rather prone to misinterpretation.

We could also use some "technical names"
  owl:aSubject
  owl:aPredicate
  owl:aObject
in honour of "annotation" and "axiom".

I don't think that we should go for owl:owlSubject, owl:owlPredicate,
and owl:owlObject!

I vote for no change, but if we do change, I like the technical names.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC