- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:08:09 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Svatek@vse.cz, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Vojtech Svatek <Svatek@vse.cz> > Subject: Re: Rich Annotations Use Cases > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:44:38 +0100 [snip] >> All such 'pattern-oriented' annotation types I have in mind are, >> in Bijan's >> terms, 'canIgnore' ones (although I am also interested in e.g. >> uncertainty >> extensions - but that's another story). >> >> My plan now is to have a bit of discussion with some 'patterns' >> guys first, >> offline, and then return with some consolidated proposal. > > Sure, go ahead, but remember, that if there isn't something for the WG > to do, and the WG is about language design, then I don't see how this > useful effort is related to the WG [snip] A good general principle, but which doesn't seem violataed by this discussion since these annotation types could be: 1) use/test cases for annotation system design 2) proposals for built-in annotations An obvious example would be so-called "Axiom Closure", e.g., adding universals where there are existentials. A very common pattern that is getting tools support and one can imagine several annotation designs that tools could use. However, there is little technically to pick between them and having commonality is better, perhaps, than pointless diversity. We have to balance, of course, issues of bloat (or stifling) with the advantages of stability, better tools support, etc. But we have several options including producing WG notes to separate recommendations to building stuff into the core recommendation. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:08:22 UTC