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

Re: Action-166 Draft sketch of how to serialize rdf annotation spaces - separate files

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080716.160819.193196563.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Action-166 Draft sketch of how to serialize rdf annotation spaces - separate files
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:03:22 -0400

> 
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > Certainly O and m(O) can be separately reasoned with, but does the
> split
> > actually achieve this?  In the proposal the first file still has quite
> a
> > bit of stuff related to the annotations, so it is not really just O!
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Which parts of O do you see as related to annotations? I certainly
> didn't intend to leave anything that would touch the DL model
> theory. However there are owl:annotatedAs triples that I thought were
> needed to be able to link the annotations to what was annotated - is
> that what you were referring to? 

Yes.  Of course, these are only needed because of the two files.

> Also, I haven't gone through a rework
> to remove serialization in O of entities that are solely used in m(O)
> such as Annotation Property declarations.

> The part that I was specifically trying to enable was reasoning within
> the annotations, for example to allow for domain and ranges on
> annotation properties. This is the part that I didn't see how to manage
> comfortably within a single file.

Why not?  In particular, why not use something analogous to the process
from the paper you cite?

> Thanks,
> Alan

peter
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 20:09:15 UTC

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