Re: evaluating DAML+OIL vs. WebOnt requirements

> > 1) Extending your recipe for strings, can't one express
> > unique URI naming of objects using
> > 
> >   :uniqueName
> >     a daml:UnambiguousProperty;  # each uniqueName denotes 1 object
> >     a daml:UniqueProperty.       # each object has only 1 uniqueName
> 
> yes; how is that different from what I wrote?

Your example used strings (DatatypeProperties).  I applied
it to ObjectProperties (a current requirement for using
UnambiguousProperty), which I think are more likely to be
used for unique names.

> > 2) For ontology management language features, I'd add that
> > DAML+OIL supports the use of other properties (such as
> > Dublin Core) with ontologies, but doesn't give them meaning.
> 
> What do you mean by that? It gives them just as much meaning
> as any other ground fact, no?

The ability to add any property you want is a capability
that we can easily take for granted, but certainly wouldn't
want to lose.

"Glorified comments" is a good description for
daml:versionInfo; we may want to add some more such
properties (somewhat akin to rdfs:isDefinedBy and
rdfs:seeAlso) and/or encourage the use of Dublin Core so
that everyone won't unnecessarily reinvent their own.

> I thought we did split it into two requirements:
>   Annotation/tagging of (whole) ontologies, which is an A requirement, and
>   tagging/grouping, i.e. giving properties to parts of ontologies, which got a B.

A couple thoughts here:

1) Although adding properties to a single object or
statement would be covered by "part"; I think it's a
sufficiently important case to deserve separate
consideration.

2) Adding properties to instances is straightforward; adding
properties to statements (which is what I mean by tagging)
is less clear (particularly if one wants to avoid all of the
other baggage and bloat associated with reification).

Thanks!

	Mike