- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:49:52 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, OWL list <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
>Actually I am not sure if it is wanted. The use case was that I have >two ontologies from different sources, and one has some labels in >Spanish, the other in English. Now I map the ontologies by using >owl:sameAs, owl:equivalentClasses, and owl:equivalentProperties. > >Do the labels carry to the mapped entities? I have the feeling that >they should. > >On the other hand, if I use the annotation properties to give some >administrative data about the URIs -- introduced by, last changed >on, etc. -- then it feels wrong. FWIW, a very similar discussion is happening in the Common Logic mailing list as we speak. CL currently has comments which (like OWL annotations) are considered part of the logical syntax (though they have no logical semantics and so do not entail anything). I thought this would be enough, but a chorus of practical programming folk have insisted that there should also be a facility to insert 'local comments' into the character file which are treated as whitespace by a parser and so are entirely invisible in the logical syntax, for exactly the uses you suggest: version tracking, last-changed dates, notes between collaborating authors, etc.. So we are busily adapting the spec to allow for such things. And of course, being invisible in the logical syntax, questions of their logical consequences simply do not arise. Just thought this experience might be of interest. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 15:58:11 UTC