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

AW: rdfs:subClassOf on Annotation Properties for Dublin Core in OWL

From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:57:38 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: "Www-Webont-Wg@W3. Org" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEPKBAAMOMMFPDCDFGFCEMADJAA.volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>



> > So what are they? AnnotationProperties or regular Properties? I am not
> > sure that "dc:source" should always be an annotation property. What if
> > this property is attached to something other than an OWL class? Are you

Actually what you are saying applies for all properties. I'm afraid that you
need to design several ontologies specific for your purpose.

> > saying that we should have multiple Dublic Core ontologies specific to
> > each class of things that they are being attached to? Perhaps,
> well then
> > we really do need a RDDL between a namespace URI and an OWL definition
> > so that we can switch between possibly 3 different ontologies
> (Lite, DL,
> > Full) for each QName/URIref.
> >
> > I am worried that this is going to cause a whole host of
> > interoperability problems, and be downright confusing ( /me again
> > following the rule of thumb that if I am confused, other folks will
> > probably also be confused)
> >
Agreed.

> > Perhaps we should forget AnnotationProperties and just say that OWL
> > DL/Lite ignores things attached to owl:Classes that it doesn't
> > understand -- i.e. just treat all unknown properties attached to an OWL
> > DL/Lite class as an annotation....

This is dangerous with respect to misspellings of OWL vocabulary, which is
common, and would complicate parsing RDF even more. Misspellings would
then have to be treated as annotation properties. With such a syntactic rule
you are likely to loose parts of the ontology in many cases. Of course,
certain
tools could apply different heuristics and say that if the edit distance is
small to
a known element of the vocabulary or something corresponds to an outdated
vocabulary element
then it can be treated differently. But, interoperability is certainly
weakened.

>
>
> Personally I believed that it would work to not have AnnotationProperty's
> per se but allow ObjectProperties and DatatypeProperties to be used on
> classes (and other things) as long as they were not used in domain and
> range constraints or restrictions or inverseOf ...
>
> We discussed this earlier in the year, and others argued that it was
> clearer to keep annotation property as a distinct syntactic category
> clearly identified as such.
>
I would prefer that

>
> I think that dc:creator is:
> a) likely to be useful on owl:Ontology's and owl:Class's
> b) likely to be useful with owl:Restriction
>
> If one combines work that takes the former use, and work that takes the
> latter viewpoint you must be in Full.
>
> Currently we would need to have:
>
> 1) RDFS defns of dc:creator
> 2) owl:AnnotationProperty defn of dc:creator
> 3) owl:DatatypeProperty defn of dc:creator
>
> and in some scenarios one needs to combine 2) and 3) - far from ideal,
> possibly good enough.
>
Agreed

Raphael

> Jeremy
>
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 11:01:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT