- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:17:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: vit.novacek@deri.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk
From: "Novacek, Vit" <vit.novacek@deri.org> Subject: RE: comments on RDF mapping Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:10:27 -0000 > > > Anyway, this is a long way to say that I second the idea that we > > > might want to revisit annotations w/respect to allowing a "minimal" > > > semantics to them - so it woudln't break DL implementations, but > > > would allow this feature to be more widely used by tools. > > > > +1 > > > As you are agreeing, presumably you have some example tools and uses. > > Could you share them with the WG? > > I'm sorry, I realised I should have given a more elaborated explanation > already when reading the e-mail [1]... > > Maybe I do not have exactly the same "conceptualisation" of the "minimal > semantics" expression used in the original e-mail - however, in the following > I'll try to give initial elaboration of the reasons why I supported this, > together with a sketch of applications that could make use of this "minimal > semantics" of annotations. Note that these views are very roughly outlined > at this stage and open to any discussion and comments - I'm also really > open to any remarks pointing me to issues and materials that could help me > with my concerns, since I'm quite new to this initiative and I'm very well > aware of that. > > First of all, I do not object against the fact that annotations should not > interfere with the DL-based inference in OWL1.1 - I think this should > be separated, indeed. So, "minimal annotation semantics" != logical > (model-theoretic) semantics of OWL1.1 recommendation in my view, therefore, > no need for reasoners to try to cope with this "mess". However, I think it > could be useful to come with a kind of very general granularisation of > annotations in OWL1.1 - i.e., to propose and model basic annotation "types", > possibly extensible by users. RDFS constructs like rdfs:label can obviously > be re-used and sub-typed in this annotation hierarchy proposal. I can imagine > the following example applications from the top of my head: > > i) Annotations can be part of the axioms, according to the document [2], > Section 3. This would allow to connect for instance versioning-related > information (time-stamp, information on version since which this > axiom has been introduced into the ontology, etc.) not only to the ontology as > such, but also to particular axioms. Of course, this could be done even now > using rdfs:label or rdfs:comment, but these properties can be used for many > other purposes, too. So, maybe it could be useful to have a common > versioning-related annotation types in order to let applications make use > of these features in uniformly defined (i.e., standard) way. I cannot > really estimate practical impact of this, however, it may not be a complete > non-sense in my opinion... Ok, but then why not just have an annotation properties like ex:time-stamp and ex:version-introducted? > ii) I have certain informal indications among the members of our institute > that a standardised way of uncertainty representation (in OWL) would be a > useful feature for their applications. According to the list referenced in [3], > these features are de facto considered to be a part of rather far future > (OWL 2.0), concerning their full incorporation into OWL (presumably into its > model-theoretic semantics). However, having a special annotation type for > expressing uncertainty (in a uniform way, not by arbitrary use of the > generic annotation properties, again) would allow for this already now. > The DL reasoners can safely omit such information in annotations, but > applications that would like to make use of uncertainty measures > associated with particular axioms could actually do it then, utilising a common > way of uncertainty representation in OWL1.1, using a dedicated type of > annotations. No matter whether they'd use the uncertainty measures just for > ranking axioms in user interfaces, or for fuzzy-DL reasoning [4], or for > whatever other purposes. Again, one or more OWL 1.1 annotations seem to be adequate here. > Hope I made myself clear enough - feel free to ask for any further > clarification if needed... > > Cheers, > Vit > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0368.html > [2] http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0347.html > [4] http://owled2007.iut-velizy.uvsq.fr/PapersPDF/submission_12.pdf peter
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 18:28:52 UTC