RE: draft responses for four JC LC comments

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: draft responses for four JC LC comments
>
>On 13 May 2009, at 14:16, Michael Schneider wrote:
>[snip]
>>> 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.
>
>That's not correct. I recall, for example, at the F2F where you raise
>this, Ian, for example, being very frustrated that we could not use
>the built-in vocabulary as it was apparently intended. 

I did not remember this. Sorry!

Concerning the bone: They already got it, in the form of a changed RDF
encoding of sub property chains. At least, I did not hear any snarling from
this direction.

But if we really want to change something, then let's again look at their
main argument:

[[
The apparent motivation is because RDF reification is 
seen as semantically problematic. These issues are not 
addressed by using the same vocabulary in a different 
namespace.
]]

Whatever these "semantically problematic" aspects are, I think it's clear
that there is no way around a multi-triple encoding of axiom annotations in
general. We have already answered this to them in the past, and we at least
did not get a negative reply on this. So, what remains is the "same
vocabulary in a different namespace" "issue". This can be changed, here's a
proposal:

  owl:annotationSource
  owl:annotationProperty
  owl:annotationTarget

This takes a bit of its nameing from the NPA vocabulary -- hope that this
will not be considered problematic, again... 

For us, this change is trivial, since it's just Find&Replace on all our
documents. Note that with the RDF Reification vocabulary, we would probably
need to say something about why we are (re)using this, and why we do /not/
apply the "intended" semantics of Reification (as stated as a "MAY" in the
RDF Semantics) in our documents, in particular not in OWL 2 DL, where
annotations are considered semantic-free. I would really like to avoid such
discussion.

But, after all, I do not see that we really are required to throw with
bones. We had this topic on our agenda, and we made a decision. Maybe on
could go either way, but that's even more reason to /not/ change anything.

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
=======================================================================