- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:49:18 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 17, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > 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. That seems shared :) > Hence, permitting RDFS reasoning, in full, on annotations seems > appropriate, for maximal interoperability with RDFS based tools, > for example, for display of data etc. I consider the issue of what *sort* of reasoning/query/manipulation to support on annotations to be a bit, but not entirely, distinct from the question of how to, roughly, serialize annotations. Some users may want OWL reasoning, in full, on annotations. Others may prefer some logic programming like thing. It's worth distinguishing the means from the effect. Consider the use of subproperty axioms with rdfs:label on the right hand side vs. using Fresnel selectors. These can have the same effect (i.e., the value of a certain property gets rendered in a UI). The typical fresnel lens will be described in a separate document, whereas, at least in RDFS land, the subproperty axiom will be in the schema (and ultimately in the dataset). For the specific purpose of UI rendering, I prefer the general Fresnel approach, though I've had my issues with Fresnel. In Swoop, we made use of label information (and multilingual labels) fruitfully, but I've never felt the need to use rdfs:label as a selector of other properties as labels. So my personal best practice recommendations roughly say, use rdfs:label directly for convenience (e.g., when your URIs are not human readable), but use a more sophisticated mechanism when you want to use domain properties as a label (e.g., ex:surname). YMMV. > 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 OWL 1.1 has both axiom and entity annotations. That is, axiom annotations are an extension of OWL 1.0 annotations. See: <http://webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html#4.4> Entity annotations are insufficient for many purposes (provenance, axiom deprecation or other flagging, timestamping, etc. etc.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:49:35 UTC