RE: draft responses for four JC LC comments

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:10 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: draft responses for four JC LC comments
>
>First, I want to situate things a bit:
>	http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#doc-reviews
>
>"""Reviewers should not send substantive technical reviews late on
>the Recommendation track. Reviewers should not expect that a Working
>Group will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. The
>more evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less
>weight substantive comments will carry when provided late on the
>Recommendation Track. Worthy ideas should be recorded even when not
>incorporated into a mature document."""

That's fine text! 

(But it's perhaps worthy to record the "Web-SROIQ" idea somewhere... will
become a classic, I guess. ;-))

>On 13 May 2009, at 12:32, Michael Schneider wrote:
>[snip]
>> * Reification Comment: I'm happy with this draft. And I agree that
>> a lot more could be said. If this should become necessary, I will
>> be happy to volunteer to say more on this. The WG may take me as a
>> champion for *not* (re|ab)using RDF reification as OWL's annotation
>> vocabulary.
>
>I don't care one way or the other. This is a bone I'd be prepared to
>throw them.
>
>Michael, as the champion, would it bug you terribly to give in on
>this point?

Yes, really! And I also do not see any need for action.

Before this comment of TQ, I remember only two typical stances of parties:
Either people did not care about this topic at all, or they were
(emotionally at least) strongly against using RDF Reification. So the
current state seems to be fine for all these parties.

Now, this mail by TQ is strange: It states that even at TQ there is no
consensus on RDF reification for annotations, but at least using RDF
reification is considered semantically problematic, but, anyway, we are
requested to change back to RDF reification. Huh?

The only real argument I can see here is that of "duplication of
vocabulary", but, sorry: It's just that the localnames of the three OWL-URIs
are the same as those of the three RDF-URIs. So maybe we should rename the
terms? I would agree with this, but nothing else. But, really, I do not see
any real reason to change anything at all. 

My favorite argument against a change is the one Peter mentions: RDF
Reification and OWL annotation vocabulary have different purposes. So, TQ's
argument that by default one should reuse existing vocabulary simply doesn't
apply here IMHO: there isn't any RDF vocabulary to be reused here. Axiom
annotations are a specific OWL 2 language feature, and they should be
handled specifically by OWL; we shouldn't try to find "similar looking" URIs
from other vocabularies, just because there are any around. Otherwise, I
propose to change owl:hasValue to rdf:value. :-]   

Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================