>> > *However*, in the abstract syntax this is not an addition of new >>> information. Instead, it is a *change*. Therefore there is no >>> non-monotonicity. >>> >> >>Yes ...., but that is angels on pinheads stuff. >> >>Could I suggest it would be clearer with a new rdfs:Class >> owl:AnnotationProperty >>and we require all annotation properties to be of this class. >> >>This is not my preferred solution, which I have already posted; but is >>intended as the least change proposal that makes the current text a little >>more tractable. >> >>This has the following positive effects: >>1: Greater uniformity in the everything has a class rule (hence easier to >>understand for the naive user) >>2: Better reflecting the abstract syntax distinctions (between three types >>of property: DatatypeProperty, ObjectProperty and annotations) in the >>concrete syntax >>3: More robust against user error (like forgetting a DatatypeProperty >>declaration). >> >>Jeremy > > >I could live with this (in fact, as a tool builder it would be useful >- because we could use subclasses of annotationProperty to do some >nice management things - like knowing which policy to assign to which >annotation etc) Would be useful in Full as well as in Lite/DL, but in >Full it would just not be required - so a nice one w/minimal changes >and fairly easy to document. > Speaking not as program chair, but as AC rep for an organization >that builds Owl tools, I would be able to support this proposal well, I just can't for the moment I would object (for the first time) and on charter grounds [[[ This Working Group, part of the Semantic Web Activity, will focus on the development of a language to *extend* the semantic reach of current XML and RDF meta-data efforts. ]]] extend, not take away -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 17:50:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT