RE: Response to the review comments of the Syntax document, Sections 3--8


> ----------
> >@Vojtech, Section 3.5: We should perhaps make sure that 'annotating
> >ontologies' in this context means '...ontologies as wholes'. How
> >about using this extended formulation? Or, annotating individual
> >entities or axioms is not 'annotating ontologies' in the general
> >sense?
> >I'm not sure I understand this comment. An ontology can be assigned
> >an annotation, just like any other entity can. I don't
> >understand what you mean with "annotating an ontology as a whole".
> >
> What I meant:
> 1) entities are parts of the ontology
> 2) so, annotating entities means annotating the ontology, in a sense?
> In the semantic annotation field, a document is seen as annotated if text
> fragments of it are annotated; it is not necessary to have annotations that
> pertain to the document as a whole.

But we never said that the "annotates" is a transitive relation. Furthermore, I said "an ontology contains annotations"; hence, I'm
not really sure why this would be interpreted as annotating the parts of an ontology.

In any case, I don't mind making the text clearer. The problem is that "annotating an ontology as a whole" is unlikely to really be
crystal clear as well.

> >@Vojtech, Section 5: "annotation properties can be used to associate
> >nonlogical information..." (similarly in 3.5). I do not
> >strictly argue against such a shortcut in this spec... but just for
> >completeness, I expect annotations to be used for pretty
> >'logical' information as well - yet this information would not be
> >expressible in OWL and thus not exploitable by tools merely
> >relying on the DL semantics of OWL...
> >
> >The term "nonlogical" is inherited from knowledge representation: it
> >means that the information is interpreted outside logic. This,
> >of course, doesn't mean that the information itself is garbage; this
> >latter sense, I believe, would be denoted by the term
> >"illogical".
> I did not mean 'logical' as 'not stupid'. My point was that the info in an
> annotation can indeed have semantics in some solid logical calculus (but
> different from the OWL species of DL) and be interpreted in an appropriate
> reasoner. Therefore, ideally, I would prefer something like "...not
> interpretable in the logical semantics of OWL". But if this sounds too
> verbose to you, I will not insist on it.

True, this could be done; however, it is not done in OWL 2. Nevertheless, I understand that the term "nonlogical" may upset some
people, so I've just removed. The sentence afterwards already says that annotations do not have semantic meaning, so we are in the

> >@Vojtech, Section 5.6.2: 'Analogous' (see also para 2 of Sect.5) is
> >too vague a characterisation to me. Are blank nodes always
> >interpreted as anonymous individuals when RDF is interpreted using
> >the OWL semantics, or when aren't they?
> >
> >Anonymous individuals are always interpreted as blank nodes and, in
> >fact, anonymous individuals are mapped to blank nodes in the RDF
> >Mapping. Anonymous individuals, however, aren't blank nodes
> >themselves: in RDF, blank nodes can occur in the schema part as
> >well.
> >Therefore, "analogous" here should be interpreted as "like".
> Would thus harm to straightforwardly say "Anonymous individuals are
> interpreted as blank nodes in RDF"?

But we say here more than how they are interpreted. They are *analogous* to blank nodes in the sense that they are local to the
ontology they occur in. This is not just a semantic notion.

Thanks again!



Received on Saturday, 13 September 2008 21:32:58 UTC