- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:07:38 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
(Prepping for the call...) I think ISSUE-92, by itself, is editorial. I.e., as Boris points out: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0247.html it's just an error. (I.e., some missing mappings.) ISSUE-91 itself only points out that there are missing mappings. The discussion on ISSUE-91 takes us to ISSUE-90: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/90 wherein the *semantics* of some of the builtin annotation properties are discussed. So I propose that we resolve 91 and 92 by: 1) adding a mapping for the ontology element (ISSUE-92) 2) adding mappings for the ontology and deprecation etc. properties to Annotations (ISSUE-91) This gets us roughly back to OWL 1.0 except now these sorts of assertion explicitly have no formal meaning at all and no prose describing their intent. (If the annotation spaces proposal gets incorporated, we can revisit exactly where these annotations should go.) I propose we spend the telecon time discussing whether we want to change the formal meaning status quo ante for these assertions, with the homework to be to read Rinke's very interesting page on ontology versioning: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Ontology_Versions and discuss it on list. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:07:58 UTC