- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
One proposal that is being floated is to use some other name for owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object. Remember that this only shows up in annotation of annotations, as in T(y) T(AP) T(av) . _:x rdf:type owl:Annotation . _:x owl:subject T(y) . _:x owl:predicate T(AP) . _:x owl:object T(av) . TANN(annotation1, _:x) ... TANN(annotationn, _:x) and annotation of (some) axioms, as in s p xlt . _:x rdf:type owl:Axiom . _:x owl:subject s . _:x owl:predicate p . _:x owl:object xlt . TANN(annotation1, _:x) ... TANN(annotationm, _:x) We could, perhaps use something like owl:annotatedSubject owl:annotatedPredicate owl:annotatedObject but this seems to be rather prone to misinterpretation. We could also use some "technical names" owl:aSubject owl:aPredicate owl:aObject in honour of "annotation" and "axiom". I don't think that we should go for owl:owlSubject, owl:owlPredicate, and owl:owlObject! I vote for no change, but if we do change, I like the technical names. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:11:09 UTC