- From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:16:57 +0200
- To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:48 PM > To: Giorgos Stoilos > Cc: 'Boris Motik'; 'OWL Working Group WG' > Subject: Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in > mapping rules is unwise > > Giorgos Stoilos wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As far as I understand annotations are already pretty weak semantically > in > > OWL 1.1 (actually they have no semantics), thus mapping them into a > > structure with weak semantics, like reification, seems harmless to me. > > > > There is harm concerning: > > a) backward compatibility ISSUE-72 > > and > > b) OWL Full/OWL DL semantic compatibility ISSUE-63 Thus, for the case of annotations, these issues (especially 72) should be resolved first. On the other hand I fully agree with the problem/issue when other constructs which already have formal semantics are used. Generally, I had the feeling from the discussion that this issue applies only to annotations, thus wanted to point out this out. Greetings, G. Stoilos > > === > > OWL 1.0 Full treats annotations on entities in the same way as other > properties. It is likely to be very confusing if OWL 1.1 has annotations > on axioms with different semantics from annotations on entities. Thus, > in OWL Full, annotations on axioms should have the semantics of other > properties. Building such a semantics on top of reification is known not > to work. > > Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:20:19 UTC