- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:27:04 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > My understanding is that there is a requirement to be able to create > properties attached to classes that have more inference support than is > currently possible using annotation properties. For example, it is > desirable that an "annotation property" for an editing time stamp should > have a range that is xsd:date, or, for SKOS, we would like to be create > subproperties of rdfs:label. > > Alan Rector articulated these cases initially, IIRC. I suspect they are > recorded somewhere amongst the OWLED stuff. If I have understood correctly, these requirements are about annotation properties, in particular in the way they interact with tools such as editors. It is clearly helpful for editors if they know what sort of values an annotation property may have, and whether or not an annotation property is intended as a label. For maximal interop with RDFS, using the RDFS methodology (i.e. rdfs:range, and rdfs:label) is good. My understanding (or perhaps misunderstanding) is that there is no theoretical problem with extending the annotation semantics to include such parts of RDFS. I (mis)understand that it is more a preference by the DL implementors, and/or editors of the semantics to not give annotations any semantics at all. Note this use case seems to only be about punning annotation properties with data properties. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 14:27:37 UTC