Re: ISSUE-16 (entity annotations)

i would use option 2a if available and i would not be able to encode 
some of the things i need to encode for my knowledge provenance work if 
i can not annotate annotations.
Thus, also, if there is a vote, i vote for 2a.

deborah

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> In ISUE-16, Jeremy points out an asymmetry in the treatement of
> annotations in OWL 1.1.
>
> There are two kinds of top-level "annotations" in OWL 1.1, 
> 1/ Entity Annotations, which are axioms
> 2/ Annotations on Ontologies, which are not axioms
>
> I agree that this asymmetry is not ideal.
>
> There appear to be two ways to recover symmetry here:
>
> 1/ Make Entity Annotations not be axioms, which, to retain symmetry,
>    would probably end up not allowing annotations on entity annotations
>    (but leaving annotations on entities), so one could say:
>
>    EntityAnnotation(OWLClass(Person)
>      Label("People") Comment("The Class of People"))
>
>    but *not*
>
>    EntityAnnotation(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider")
>      OWLClass(Person) Label("People") Comment("The Class of People"))
>
> 2/ Make Annotations on Ontologies be axioms, which would probably allow
>    annotations on entity annotation axioms, and also allow annotations
>    on ontology annotations, as in
>
>    Ontology(<http://foo.ex/foo>
>      Comment(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider")
>              "An ontology about nothing at all"))
>
> 2a/ The second option could be extended to allow annotations on any
>     annotation, as in 
>
>    EntityAnnotation(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider")
>      OWLClass(Person)
>      Label(Annotation(creatorsName "Peter F. Patel-Schneider") "People")
>      Comment(Annotation(creatorsName "Bijan Parsia") "The Class of People"))
>     
> I think that I would vote for option 2a, even though it is the largest
> changed to the current situation.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>
> PS:  I make not claims about the suitability of the actual annotations
>      in the examples above.
>
> PPS: I expect that there is a missing "not" after "should" in the
>      description of the issue in the issue list.
>
>

Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 18:26:22 UTC