Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 1 Nov 2007, at 16:41, Novacek, Vit wrote: > >>> The question would be where adding specific properties to the OWL >>> spec is >>> appropriate > > Yes. > >>> versus those properties being defined in some standard ontology. > > This is an alternative. If this group does it, it's a bit moot or rather > an implementation decision which way we go. But having a better set of > predefined annotation properties so tools can support them specifically > is a win, IMHO. > > For example, we should look at what it takes to have a tighter > integration with SKOS (at the annotation level). > +1 Note that the SKOS people (on the SWD Working Group) have been fighting with the SKOS/OWL-DL relationships for a while. At the last f2f meeting the group decided to put the DL issues on hold specifically because some of the issues they were fighting with may become moot in OWL1.1 DL (eg, via punning). But they can surely give a good feedback on the issues if we ask them... (and yes, a better integration with SKOS on the annotation level might be a good way to handle some of these issues for Vit, too). Caveat: the SWD WG would like to have a SKOS CR sometimes next April. Ie, they would probably resist adding dependencies on OWL1.1 into their work... Cheers Ivan >>> I don't know what the answer is. Would be interested in seeing the >>> list of >>> candidate properties... >> >> Good point - I'll consider this, try to list possible options (mainly >> within >> the motivation part of the would-be proposal), prepare some more concrete >> initial comments as soon as possible after I'll be back in the office > [snip] > > Looking forward. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 11:32:43 UTC