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

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> 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.

Sure, let rdf:comment be applied to classes and properties, it is a (data
valued) property *like any other*

>
> 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.
>

What is the fundamental harm in allowing

:foo rdf:comment "anything" .

where :foo might be any of a class, property or ontology. Now if this causes
issues for ontology versioning etc, so be it -- that is a function of the
system we've designed. The bottom line is that one could say that if someone
changes a comment, the whole ontology is changed. Or one might choose to
compare ontologies, or any other individuals, without talking into account
this, or any other property. I fail to see why this ought to be a
fundamentally special case.

I don't see why this annotation issue is such a fundamental problem that it
deserves special semantics. Strings attached to graphs are just that.

Jonathan