- From: Novacek, Vit <vit.novacek@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:01:29 -0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
> Ok, but then why not just have an annotation properties like > ex:time-stamp and ex:version-introducted? Well, maybe I've missed something in this remark, but I meant rather to have these "finer-grained" annotation properties in the OWL vocabulary and namespace in order to make sure that whoever around the world uses these features, uses the same vocabulary to express them (especially useful for the uncertainty representation case, if we want to allow for possible re-use of "uncertain" ontologies). They would bear a kind of universally attributed semantics then, however, this semantics would not be intended to mix with the model-theoretic semantics of OWL at all... It would of course be quite tricky to decide the respective set of these annotation property extensions in order to keep them intuitive enough and practical at the same time. Moreover, the set should be as small as possible, general enough to cover as much use cases as possible and specific enough to restrict the application of particular annotation types... Tricky, but perhaps not impossible and maybe even worthwhile... Cheers, Vit
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 19:01:52 UTC