Re: ISSUE-16 (entity annotations): A proposal for closing this issue without action

I'm not sure what you mean by not having annotation axioms?

We do have annotation axioms, but only for entities and anonymous  
individuals. No one, AFAICT, is suggesting removing them. I believe  
that what was said, by Boris, is that we shouldn't implement his  
earlier suggestion to resolve issue-16 by making all annotations be  
separate axioms, because axiom annotations would then require an  
axiom (the one to be annotated) within an axiom (the annotation  
axiom) -- a potential problem for the RDF serialisation (at least).

Ian



> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:04:55 +0100
> Message-Id: <135788AD-3EF6-4E20-BFD9-ACACE1C02757@cs.man.ac.uk>
> To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>
> > On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:03, Boris Motik wrote:
> [snip[
> > I don't believe that a mapping of either proposal to RDF can be
> > achieved without jumping through some serious hoops. In this light,
> > I don't consider the ability to annotate annotations sufficiently
> > important to warrant spending our time on developing a solution.
> > Therefore, I propose to close this issue without any action.
>
> Not having annotation axioms is a non-starter for Manchester, and for
> many others.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 12:50:07 UTC