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

Re: annotations - proposed solution

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:50:56 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1043938256.32644.218.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 01:48, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Summary: Annotations are normal datatype or obejct properties which do not 
> syntactically participate in any restrictions, or have inverses, or be 
> declared as transitive or symmetric. They are given the semantics from RDFS.
> The "any restrictions" covers domain, range, FunctionalProperty etc.
> ======================================================
> My prefered solution for annotations is as follows:
> For textual annotations, such as rdfs:comment and rdfs:label, the properties 
> used in the annotations are declared as owl:DatatypeProperty's in the usual 
> way. (The two rdfs props are builtin and do not need to be declared) When 
> used on individuals the triple corresponds to a propertyValue in the abstract 
> syntax, and is given meaning by the direct semantics. When used on an 
> ontology, class or property the triple corresponds to an annotation in the 
> abstract syntax.

This looks workable.

Though I'm actually not all that clear on what the problem is.

I'd appreciate some examples.

Ah... ok, the one from your message of 26Jan
cited from your proposed issue of 27Jan makes
it clear enough to me what the problem is.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 09:51:32 UTC

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