- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:48:46 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>> I have a lonely preference for literals, but the toolkits have
>> problems with them (and there are namespace issues I think you've
>> mentioned...you could use an alternative syntax but then the
>> toolkits just die faster :)).
>
> I think this might be the best approach.
[snip]
Ooo, now *two* people like it!
Consensus...here we come! :)
(To be fair, I've usually advocated embedding RDF/XML since that
would keep us "standards tied" all the way down, only one syntax,
etc. and that seems to have problems. One could encode it as a string
instead of as an xmlliteral which might work better.)
Re:
> _:a a owl11:Annotation .
> _:a owl11:annotating """
> # some turtle that gives the triples being annotated
>
> """ .
> _:a rdfs:comment """ .
> annotation
> """
> _a dc:creator "Another Annotation" .
You could also do:
_:a a owl11:Axiom;
rdf:value """" the turtle or xml or whatever expessing the axiom"
_:a rdfs:comment """"whatever"
_:a dc:creator """bijan"""...
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:49:01 UTC