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

Re: ISSUE: annotations

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:18:52 +0000
Message-ID: <15941.40556.559313.525212@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

On February 7, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> I propose that OWL users wanting to annotate their ontologies with no 
> formal semantic entailments be recommended to use XML Comments.

Apart from any other problem, the result would inevitably be loss a
tool interoperability (see my comments in [1]).

> I propose that annotations within the RDF graph in OWL Lite and OWL DL be 
> given the same formal semantic force as in RDFS.

As I said in [1], look at how comments are actually being used in
ontologies - it just doesn't make sense to try to impose RDF semantics
on natural language rubrics.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0113.html

> A way that this can be done is articulated in [1] (under heading "OWL 
> Lite/DL Entailment between RDF/XML documents").
> I propose that annotation properties be declared using an explicit type of 
> owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty, that they be syntactically 
> restricted as in [1] to not interact with other aspects of the ontology, 
> and that the production for individual in the abstract syntax be modified 
> accordingly [i.e. the explicit {annotation} in the rule is no longer needed].
> Jeremy
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0523.html
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 19:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC