RE: Annotations and non-mon example

<snip>

> The owl:AnnotationProperty idea comes from seeing it as a mistake to have
a
> distinct syntactic category that is defined in the concrete syntax by an
> absence of information rather than by the presence of information.
>
> My preferred solution merges the syntactic category of annotation
property
> with the other syntactic categories of properties - ending up with five
> different categories of property in the abstract syntax, but only two
markers
> (owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty) in the concrete syntax.

That last paragraph I find completely acceptable
and for our machines only the concrete RDF syntax matters
and the abstract syntax is only a means to that end.

(Aside)
Annotations should be in all OWL levels and their meaning should
be the same as what the triples mean in RDF model theory.
That's what I meant that we cannot take that meaning out.


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/