- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:13:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Rich Annotations Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:40:06 +0000 > On Nov 25, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> > > Subject: Re: Rich Annotations > > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:48:08 +0000 > > > >> On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> > >>> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> > >>> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:52:40 +0000 > [snip] > >> This makes it conforming and specifies a processing model. I don't > >> see how you can appeal to the bad of sanctioning non-conformingness > >> if the proposal makes it conforming. You may not want such uses to > >> conform, but that's different. > > > > What processing model? Does your proposal provide a way of > > determining > > when a tool does the right thing for (i.e., understand) these > > annotated > > constructs? > > One checks with the associated spec. Where? Who determines? How specified? > > If not, then how can one determine conformance? > > By checking with the associated spec. > > I could > > cliam that my tool understands all annotations; how could you > > refute my > > claim? > > By pointing to the associated spec. Suppose I claim that you are pointing to the wrong thing? > It isn't magic, just a hook. This is no different than the current > situation *except* I have a way of indicating to arbitrary tools that > I've included an extension. That's all this is doing. Yes, this may be *all*, but it seems to me to be a very big all. > > [...] > > > >>>> Yeah. Your tactics don't actually reduce the number of extensions, > >>>> because people will and do extend. And they *will* use paths of > >>>> less > >>>> resistance. Thus, I'd rather make those paths somewhat more robust. > >>> > >>> I view having a syntax extension as more robust. I view a > >>> modification > >>> of the meaning of existing syntax as the least robust kind of > >>> change to > >>> a specification, no matter how it is signalled. > >> > >> The syntax would be e.g., "SubClassOf with a mustUnderstand > >> annotation". I'm proposing that this be a kind of syntactic > >> extension. > > > > OK. I suppose that one could think of the status of annotation spaces > > as a modifier on the syntax of existing OWL syntactic constructs. > > However, I don't view this as a desirable syntax extension mechanism. > > Fine. > > > In any case, I would count it as a major change to OWL. > > Why? It's a small change to any tool (detect mustUnderstand, punt if > tool isn't aware of the extension). This is exactly the current > status except one is not required to punt. As I said before, perhaps not a major change to implementations (but I'm not convinced on the point), but a major change in philosophy. > [snip] > >> I think you have a preference for things called "annotations" to be > >> "semantically meaningless". I just view them as a syntactic category. > >> People will write tools that are sensitive to that syntactic > >> category. Some of these might involve overriding (in a *variety* of > >> ways) the default interpretation of other bits of syntax. When that > >> happens, I'd like to mark it. > > > > I, on the other hand, would like to make it very clear in the > > recommendation that these sorts of uses of annotations are not > > conformant to the specification. > > And that is a departure from OWL as she are practiced. Which, I would > argue, is a bigger departure. Nope. That is just the way things are right now. > > [...] > > > >> Right but I can at least see which subClass axioms are disjointess > >> axioms, etc. Again, if my extension is radically non local, that will > >> be of limited use, but you are just pointing out a limitation. Yeah, > >> it has limits. So? Constraints, non-mon inheritence, probabilities, > >> axiom schemas, etc. all seem to work fairly reasonably. > > > > It would be useful to have some examples of how these sorts of things > > would work. > > I listed examples. If you would like more detail, feel free to ask on > any of them. Pronto is described in a series of blog posts. Yes please, I need pointers and details. [...] > Cheers, > Bijan. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 09:29:29 UTC