- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:00:57 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 14:58:40 UTC