- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:59:09 +0000
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > I don't want to get into an argument here whether this is really needed or not; however, I wanted to point out that I spoke to quite > a few people asking for the annotation of axioms. > There are always trade offs. I certainly am not trying to suggest that the feature was unmotivated. But *need* is quite a strong word. In the wider scheme of things, the Web and Semantic Web are not *needed*, (not in the way that we need bread and water; love and friends) so I am pretty sure that any feature of OWL 1.1 is not necessary either. > There is yet another solution: we might have axiom annotations in the structural specification, but then disallow (or simply delete > them) when the ontology is exported into OWL RDF. Interesting. A key raison d'être for the previous WG was to have a single web ontology language, OWL, that encompassed the DL view and the RDF view. To get such interoperability was, in the view of that WG, a very valuable goal. It is always possible for us to give up on that goal, and then perhaps the key task of this WG is merely to squabble over names (i.e. what is OWL?, is it the DL version, or the RDF version?) More constructively, what I am hearing, I think, is that the requirement is for comments that have no semantics and just fit into the specification in the right way. In RDF/XML there has always been the capability to have such comments - they look like: <!-- This is a comment, it has no bearing on the formal semantics of the document. --> It may be possible to provide say, an informative GRDDL transform from an XML version of the axioms, to RDF/XML, and back again, that round trips comments appropriately. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:59:36 UTC