- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:25:00 +0000
- To: Chris Mungall <CJMungall@lbl.gov>
- Cc: David Osumi-Sutherland <djs93@gen.cam.ac.uk>, public-owl-comments@w3.org
I agree -- it is a no-brainer and a trivial addition. Ian On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:50, Chris Mungall wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:43 AM, David Osumi-Sutherland wrote: > >> Ian: Thanks for posting the Errata. >> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:53:08 +0000, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately this parenthetical remark is inaccurate. The Functional Style syntax does not support comments (in the way that e.g., the XML serialization supports XML comments). Pretty much everything in the functional style syntax makes it into the model and that's a consequence, in part, of trying to make it as isomorphic as possible with the abstract model. >> >>> We should delete the parenthetical. >> >>> Alternatively, we could easily add # style comments to the functional syntax. >> >> I would favour adding them. Ontologies that use number IDs for the URI and store human readable names as labels produce files that are hard to work with, especially in the context of a VCS system where rapidly interpreting diffs and merges is essential. This could be remedied by auto-annotating axoims with human readable versions using comments. For this purpose, a system of comments that are essentially disposable is an advantage. > > I second this - I had always assumed this was possible anyway from a loose reading of the parenthetical remark. > >> Regards, >> >> David >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:25:31 UTC