W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Annotations and non-mon example

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:25:20 +0100
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0337EA45.412ABBD7-ONC1256CC1.00493971-C1256CC1.0049BF9E@agfa.be>


<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/
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 08:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT