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

Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:15:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030212.181519.128746224.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:48:28 -0500

> pat hayes wrote:
> >
> > I do not feel that special annotation properties are either necessary
> > or desirable. The only case for them seems to be Peter's being
> > worried that allowing annotations to be regular assertions might in
> > some unspecified way cause problems of some unspecified nature. I do
> > not believe that there are any such problems.
> 
> I basically agree, though I'd phrase it differently:
> 
> My gut instinct tells me that mucking around with such semantic changes at
> this stage in the game ought not be done without careful consideration and
> only for a really really good reason -- i.e. to fix a showstopper problem.
> 
> For a dummy: why would "annotation properties" be fundamentally different
> than any other properties whose object is an untyped literal string?
> 
> Jonathan

Because they can be applied to classes and properties.  If they can't, then
they are no different from data-valued properties.  If they can, then they
are are completely different category.

That said, I'm not in favour of syntactically tagging properties that show
up in annotations as annotation properties.  This view has the benefit of
not producing any change in OWL Full.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:15:36 GMT

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