- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:27:50 +0000
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 21 Jan 2009, at 20:42, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi! > > I would put the "named class" option to the top of the list. Oy. Such wordsmithing! So unnecessary! :) > I think our > annotation approach can now be pretty well described by: "The > objects of > annotations are URIs." No: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Annotations_of_Ontologies.2C_Axioms.2C_and_other_Annotations """AnnotationValue := AnonymousIndividual | IRI | Literal""" So the string version is just as canonical. :) > And since the "named class" option just introduces > such a URI, it looks to me to be the most obvious of the proposed > workarounds. Which is the most "obvious" is irrelevant, methinks. They all involve tradeoffs. They all require tool intervention to mitigate those tradeoffs. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 23:28:32 UTC