Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal

Thanks Bijan for putting together this proposal. It is a good start to 
address issues surrounding the current annotation system. 

I have two concerns:

1.  It is not clear to me from your proposal whether *all* annotations are 
now considered axioms ? not just EntityAnnotation in the current spec.  I 
agree with jlc415 who reported issue 16 
(http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/16) that ?either all 
annotations should be axioms, or none should?. Having all annotations as 
axioms makes it possible to annotate them. This is especially useful since 
we now plan to have annotations (?mustUnderstand? annotations) that can 
change the semantics of axioms and entities.  For example, one might want 
to annotate with provenance information a ?mustUnderstand? annotation.  I 
am open to other mechanisms allowing annotations (?mustUnderstand? 
annotations in particular) to be annotated.

2.  For an annotationByBlob, which enables arbitrary assertions, limiting 
the content to facts makes sense.  However, allowing arbitrary XML, as you 
suggested could be done in principle, might raise issues related to the 
translation of arbitrary XML content into RDF.  To avoid these issues, I 
think we can, in principle, allow arbitrary RDF/XML content instead of 
arbitrary XML.

Best regards,
Achille. 




Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> 
Sent by: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
11/06/2007 11:20 AM

To
"Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Rich Annotation System Proposal







This is a first draft:
 
                 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System

I have not yet migrated my examples, but there's enough there (and 
enough controversial) to get discussion started, I think.

I created a separate page for particular annotation sets we might 
like to build in:

                 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotations

Cheers,
Bijan.