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

RE: Annotations and non-mon example

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:35:28 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f0eba64498dedd2@[10.0.0.11]>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org

At 23:48 +0100 1/31/03, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>  >>  > *However*, in the abstract syntax this is not an addition of new
>>>>    information.  Instead, it is a *change*.  Therefore there is no
>>>>    non-monotonicity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes ...., but that is angels on pinheads stuff.
>>>
>>>Could I suggest it would be clearer with a new rdfs:Class
>>>    owl:AnnotationProperty
>>>and we require all annotation properties to be of this class.
>>>
>>>This is not my preferred solution, which I have already posted; but is
>>>intended as the least change proposal that makes the current text a
>little
>>>more tractable.
>>>
>>>This has the following positive effects:
>>>1: Greater uniformity in the everything has a class rule (hence easier to
>>>understand for the naive user)
>>>2: Better reflecting the abstract syntax distinctions (between three
>types
>>>of property: DatatypeProperty, ObjectProperty and annotations) in the
>>>concrete syntax
>>>3: More robust against user error (like forgetting a DatatypeProperty
>>>declaration).
>>>
>>>Jeremy
>>
>>
>>I could live with this (in fact, as a tool builder it would be useful
>>- because we could use subclasses of annotationProperty to do some
>>nice management things - like knowing which policy to assign to which
>>annotation etc) Would be useful in Full as well as in Lite/DL, but in
>>Full it would just not be required - so a nice one w/minimal changes
>>and fairly easy to document.
>>   Speaking not as program chair, but as AC rep for an organization
>>that builds Owl tools,  I would be able to support this proposal
>
>well, I just can't for the moment
>I would object (for the first time) and on charter grounds
>
>[[[
>This Working Group, part of the Semantic Web Activity,
>will focus on the development of a language to *extend*
>the semantic reach of current XML and RDF meta-data efforts.
>]]]
>
>extend, not take away
>

Jos - clearly there is a lot of confusion going on, as both you and I 
think annotations are important and good, and I thought Jeremy's 
proposal was a good way to include them, you thought it would exclude 
them
  I think we have so many threads on this and I, at least, am now lost 
between what we are talkign about for the abstract syntax, what in 
the RDF graph, what in the XML/RDF, etc.
  I do think you are right though about the charter - we are to extend 
the reach as you quote, further DAML+OIL allowed annotations 
(encouraging DC, using comments in the namespace, etc.) and since we 
generally have been using a D+O == OWL DL sort of metaphor, the "do 
it how DAML did" default would seem to say we should have some way of 
handling annotations in Owl DL.
  However, Peter and Jeremy have various actions on this stuff, so we 
should see how those turn out before we invent something else
  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 11:39:20 GMT

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