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

On 7 Jul 2008, at 13:49, Ian Horrocks wrote:

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

That was garbled, wasn't it. I meant annotations on axioms, which we  
do have.

> We do have annotation axioms, but only for entities and anonymous  
> individuals.

And for axioms. I misread and thought the proposal was for getting  
rid of annotations on axioms. *That's* a non-starter for manchester.  
I need to investigate more on metaannotations.

> 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).

Yes. Well, I've heard several people over the past year ask for meta- 
annotations (I believe NCI and Deb are among them. I'm unclear  
whether the cost benefit is worth it.


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 14:58:40 UTC