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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:44:13 +0100
Message-Id: <2B83933E-4808-42E1-AD93-2C6A9C219E50@gmail.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>


On Jul 10, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 16:00, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>> On 7 Jul 2008, at 13:49, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
> The cost of Boris's proposal is the need to embed axioms within  
> axioms and issues related to determining if the embedded axiom is  
> asserted in the ontology or not. This could be particularly  
> problematical in the RDF serialisation where, as we know, there is  
> no mechanism for grouping triples, and where it might be difficult  
> to distinguish such an embedded axiom from a "bare" axiom.

Is this a problem if we restrict the syntax so that the only axioms  
that can be embedded in others are annotation axioms? In that case it  
doesn't matter if the annotation is "asserted in the ontology or  
not", since the assertion is without logical consequence.


> The cost of Peter's proposal is that we would need arbitrarily  
> nested reification. This seems undesirable given that "simple"  
> reification is already controversial/problematical

It seems to me that it is problematical only in that it is  
controversial.

> -- although Peter doesn't seem to see any problem with this  
> (apparently taking the view that if we solve the basic problem,  
> then nesting shouldn't introduce any additional difficulty).
This is my view as well.
>
> After discussing both proposals on the teleconf the prevailing  
> opinion was that the added complexity of the RDF mapping wouldn't  
> be justified -- Boris withdrew his proposal -- but no firm decision  
> was taken: we should give Peter a chance to say why he thinks his  
> solution is OK and others to make a case as to why is annotations  
> on annotations is an important feature.

Note that I have pointed out the SKOS uses cases for annotations on  
annotations in a previous email. So if supporting SKOS is important,  
then we can say that annotations on annotations is an important feature.

-Alan

>
> Ian
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 00:44:55 UTC

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