W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

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

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:49:24 +0100
Message-Id: <94FAC474-E723-4019-ACFD-EAC8365CA7EB@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC