annotations (was Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13)

Sure, my proposal to close ISSUE-16, as written, doesn't directly
address Alan's concerns.  I suppose that one could somehow link these
concerns to some wording in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0398.html but
I didn't see a direct link.

At this point I think that the WG should be looking for minimal
solutions that can support future work in various areas.  My view is
that extending the syntax of annotations (to allow annotations on
annotations) is such a minimal solution, that would then allow tool
vendors to investigate the space of solutions, which could then coalesce
into a common solution.  

In essence, this is what the OWL 1.1 annotations did - providing a
syntactic mechanism for adding annotations to axioms, in the absence of
any agreement on any meaning for such annotations that could be
compatible with performance reasoners for OWL.  The metalevel work
reported in
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/pubs/dhmgh08-metalevel-information.pdf
goes further, and may indeed be the way forward, but the jury is still
out on this, I think.

I would also be satisfied if no change was made to annotations, by the
way.

peter

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:45:39 -0400

> Hi Peter,
> 
> Here is an email from Alan Rector at the end of 2006 while the OWL 1.1
> submission was being written. Note the point about priority
> requests. These are still not addressed. Having SKOS be representable in
> OWL 2 DL is also a goal that has been put forth.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> > Peter, All
> >
> > Excuse the silence.  Pressure in the run-up to Christmas.
> > Many thanks to all, especially Peter for an enormous amount of work.
> >
> > Points of clarification:
> >
> > * How to "comments" as described below relate to rdf:Comment?
> >
> > * Do these changes allow us to put domain and range constraints and
> > hierarchy on annotation properties.  Those are three of our priority
> > requests.  It isn't clear to me that they do.  I don't want this to get
> > lost in the debate on comments.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Alan
> >
> 
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > The original Rich Annotations proposal
> > 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System
> > states that it is motivated by
> > ISSUE-12: Annotations of multi-triple axioms
> > ISSUE-16: Entity annotations status
> > ISSUE-20: Annotate declarations
> > ISSUE-32: Complex annotations
> > ISSUE-40: Extra-logical features
> > and the issues in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0398.html
> > which are
> > 1) Development tool metadata
> > 2) Deployment tool metadata
> > 3) Must understand language extensions
> > 4) May ignore language extensions
> >
> > Certainly the proposal does not address the second last of these nine,
> > but the others are at least arguably addressed.
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
> > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:42:23 -0400
> >
> >> Hello Peter,
> >>
> >> This doesn't meet the requirements that motivated the original rich
> >> annotation proposal, such as allowing domain and range restrictions
> on
> >> annotations, or subProperty relationships between them.
> >>
> >> -Alan
> >>
> >> On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >>> The status is
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0060.html
> >>>
> >>> My view is that that is all that is required in the OWL 2
> specification.
> >>>
> >>> peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:15:56 -0400
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Subject: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13
> >>>>> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:43:40 -0400
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> General Discussion (40 minutes)
> >>>>>>   Annotations: Plan B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is Plan B?
> >>>>
> >>>> That is the question. I would like to confer on the status of your
> and
> >>>> Bijan's work on the annotation proposal, and make plans in the case
> that
> >>>> it is not ready, as we discussed at the F2F. I anticipate would
> discuss
> >>>> idea for annotations that fall short of the rich annotation
> proposal but
> >>>> address some of the requirements our users have articulated. We had
> >>>> postponed that pending seeing what the resolution of rich
> annotations
> >>>> was.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Alan
> >>>>
> >>>>> If we are going to discuss Annotations yet again, I think that
> >>>> pointers
> >>>>> to the proposals up for discussion are needed, and that proposals
> that
> >>>>> have already been discussed should have evolved to be considered
> for
> >>>>> re-discussion.  The only activity I see in the WG related to
> >>>> annotations
> >>>>> is my message from Monday
> >>>>>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0060.html
> >>>>> which contains a proposal to close ISSUE-16 by adding annotations
> on
> >>>>> annotations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> peter
> >>>>
> >>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 20:12:32 UTC