- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:36:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: achille@us.ibm.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Rich Annotation System Proposal Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:19:47 +0000 > On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Achille Fokoue wrote: [...] > > 1. It is not clear to me from your proposal whether *all* > > annotations are now considered axioms – not just EntityAnnotation > > in the current spec. > > The current proposal punted on this. > > > 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 could be easily incorporated. I just hacked the minimal changes > to the grammar I could to get the proposal done as soon as possible. > So this seems a great addition. I'm not sure what the rationale for making all annotations be axioms, as in ISSUE-16. It's not as if the grammar has a production like: axiom ::= 'AxiomAnnotation(' annotation axiom ')' | .... so making annotations be axioms wouldn't magically allow them to have annotations themselves. It also seems a bit strange to have axioms include other things that are themselves axioms. Right now axioms are all top-level constructs in an ontology. The request should be instead that the grammar for annotations be expanded to something like: annotationByXXX ::= 'Annotation(' { annotation } annotationURI XXX ')' [...] > Cheers, > Bijan. peter
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 08:51:23 UTC