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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0475.html
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 GMT

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