- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:45:40 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
I agree with that. Looking at annotations and
imports (or merges) I can't help thinking about
merging different file tree systems (incl. unix
ln). Given the web that works out pretty well
and the web doesn't obsolete file systems.
Just like links could be broken or shortcircuited
triples could be alike but that can be detected
or fused (in a decentral way).
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Ian Horrocks
<horrocks@cs.man.a To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
c.uk> cc: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: Annotations use case
www-webont-wg-requ
est@w3.org
2003-02-12 10:44
AM
Please respond to
Ian Horrocks
Another point on annotation.
I presume that it is obvious by now that we need to have annotations
in the RDF graph (XML comments just don't hack it as there is no
guarantee that they would be preserved when exchanging or editing
ontologies). If all such comments are semantically meaningful, then
there is a serious issue with backwards compatibility. E.g., if I
correct a spelling mistake in an annotation, then is the resulting
ontology backwards compatible with the original?
Ian
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 06:47:02 UTC