RE: Annotation entailment?

Hello,

A couple of us have written a paper about it, and have submitted it to a
conference. It is currently being reviewed, but still, here is a link to the
extended version:

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bmotik/metaviews/paper-full.pdf

The paper contains a discussion of the precise semantics of such ontologies,
examines the pros and cons, and proposes an alternative. I shall be indebted
to you should you have any comments.

Sincerely yours,

	Boris Motik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 28 June 2007 07:29
> To: Denny Vrandecic
> Cc: OWL list
> Subject: Re: Annotation entailment?
> 
> 
> I have recently understood it to be the case that this *is* entailed.
> However, I don't think that it is desirable, and it seems to be the
> case that there is no OWL-DL reasoner that attempts to be sound and
> (otherwise) complete that implements this behavior, at least that I'm
> aware of.
> 
> What do you think of this behavior? Is it is what you expected or
> wanted? If so, I'd be interested hearing about your use case.
> 
> Until recently it was my (flawed) understanding that statements
> involving annotation properties were to be ignored by a reasoner.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> 
> >
> > Does
> > ex:A rdf:label "Groo".
> > ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
> > entail
> > ex:B rdf:label "Groo"?
> >
> > i.e. are annotation property instances connected to the URI or the
> > underlying individual?
> > (And respectively for classes and properties)
> >
> > Wondering,
> > denny
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 08:01:24 UTC