Re: datatype maps, annotations, and conforming to a profile

Sorry, didn't mean to have any reply (recent hand surgery makes fat fingering cascades more common). 

So to make up for that, I'd say that there's no point in letting annotations kick you out of a profile. Outside of OWL Full, an ontology should be logically equivalent (pace some details) regardless of the annotations. 

So even if the spec can be read to require annotations to conform to the restrictions of a profile, I don't see why an implementer would follow that. 

Of course, if you are writing an app that's sensitive to the annotations you might want all sorts of restrictions on them. But you'll need to write your own checker.  

(I did a quick peek of the spec and didn't find any unambiguously categorical text but I didn't look at the rdf translation)

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 14:01, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 21:46, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm in a discussion about whether annotation axioms and ontology annotations are subject to the datatype restrictions that are checked for conformance to a profile. I don't recall discussing this, but it seems like it would not have been the intent since the datatype map is only of relevance to the reasoner. Some parts of the spec read like they might apply, others part ambiguous (at least to me).
>> 
>> *I* don't think that the values of annotations should play a role in determining the profile, but I wonder if others who were in the WG can speak to this.
>> 
>> Alan
>

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 14:17:02 UTC