Re: RDFS compatibility information in OWL-DL documents

My view is that annotations are a shared feature between RDF and OWL, 
and doing annotations in OWL the same way as in RDF is likely to be a win.

Hence, permitting RDFS reasoning, in full, on annotations seems 
appropriate, for maximal interoperability with RDFS based tools, for 
example, for display of data etc.

An issue is the annotations on axioms, using reification in the current 
OWL 1.1 specs. I appreciate that this is semantically correct - the 
annotation is about the axiom, and not about some participant in the 
axiom; but I wonder whether the OWL 1.0 approach of annotating a class 
or a property or an individual, may have had the merit of greater 
interoperability - in an area where functionalities like pretty-printing 
are more pertinent than reasoning


Jeremy


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
>> It is often the case that someone using OWL wishes to target some 
>> information for specifically for tools which understand RDF/RDFS in 
>> some way. A good example would be wanting to indicate to particular 
>> property should be considered a user interface label for a rdf "follow 
>> your nose" type of browser such as the tabulator 
>> (http://www.w3.org/2005/ajar/tab).
>>
>> In this case, the way to communicate this information to the tabulator 
>> is to make the property in question a subproperty of rdfs:label. 
>> However, doing such a thing brings an ontology in to OWL-Full.
>>
>> Another example would be including the rdfs version of the OWL 
>> definitions (owl:AnnotationProperty  rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:Property) 
>> for those tools where it might be useful.
>>
>> I am wondering whether we can add some standard way of indicating such 
>> information in an OWL-DL document, either syntactically, or via an 
>> appropriately named annotation property that we can advertise as being 
>> for this use.
> 
> Or just a better profile.
> 
> We could get the effect of OWL 1.1 entity annotations (or even punning) 
> by defining an ad hoc species "OWL DL with enriched annotation 
> properties) to treat as if it were in a separate document". We'd 
> certainly update Pellet to support that (it's a very small change overall).
> 
> The other way is to keep the annotations and the domain model in 
> separate documents, then have a third document which imports them. There 
> are some advantages to keeping the presentation information separate, 
> though this particular way of doing it is can be clunky.
> 
> Hmm. You could annotate properties that were for display or were labels. 
> The main problem with that is that existing tools wouldn't be sensitive 
> to it. Fresnel could be another solution since it does separate the 
> presentation fairly neatly.
> 
> Really, I think the smart thing is to figure out what would work 
> reasonably for users and then just get everyone to go with that 
> convention. The infrastructure is small enough that it's feasible, 
> if...annoying :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:34:37 UTC