- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:38:04 -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 19:01:29 -0000 > > > > > 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 > OK, so you are just asking for more annotation properties, similar to owl:versionInfo. Correct? peter
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 08:47:58 UTC