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

Re: A proposal for resolving the punning issue (ISSUE-114) + a related proposal for a tweak to the annotation system

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:11:23 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0810170811m7eafdfd0w9a97b2a90fb6e348@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Boris Motik
<boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

snip

>> I agree that it shouldn't be in the spec, but I think we should have
>> at least some story. It might be something worth mentioning in the
>> primer or other user facing document. The case I am considering is
>> when the URI has multiple views, and a tool such as protege has to
>> enable comfortable interaction with the annotation value URI.
>>
>
> In the Structural Spec I can stipulate that the resulting thing is a URI and not an entity (view). I can do this in an example.

Hi Boris,

I ran this by Nick Drummond and he thought that Protege would provide
links to all the views of the URI. So if we included an example in the
Structural spec it should do something like that.

-Alan
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:11:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC