Re: Response to JC5

I believe that Ian mistyped, and has been referring to JC6.  He merged
our two replies.  

I am happy with the merge.  If you are as well, I think that you can
send it out tomorrow.

peter


From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Response to JC5
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:51:29 +0200

> Hi!
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>>Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:54 PM
>>To: OWL 1.1
>>Cc: Peter Patel-Schneider
>>Subject: Response to JC5
>>
>>The current draft [1] looks good to me -- speak up now if you disagree.
> 
> No, please stop!
> 
> """
> Therefore the Working Group will not be making 
> any change to OWL 2 in response to this comment.
> """
> 
> This is NOT what I have communicated to TQ! The change of the names, as we
> have discussed yesterday, is crucial:
> 
>   owl:subject   --> owl:annotatedSource
>   owl:predicate --> owl:annotatedProperty
>   owl:object    --> owl:annotatedTarget
> 
> And possibly also some explaining text, probably in NF&R and/or Primer, that
> the annotation vocabulary is meant to be used exclusively for annotation
> purposes in the specifically defined way, if there isn't such text already.
> 
> Apart from this, in my discussion with TQ, I became aware that there might
> really be an issue with getting back to RDF Reification for annotations, at
> least a principle one. Topbraid Composer directly supports the reification
> of arbitrary RDF statements, and mixing such unrestricted custom reification
> with the very precisely defined annotation of axioms would possibly lead to
> a mess. 
> 
> In particular, since RDF reification is intended to happens at triple level,
> while axiom annotation, although also technically only reifying a "main
> triple", targets the complete triple /set/ encoding a given axiom. So,
> depending on the view, the same reification statement could have different
> scopes, and this may well confuse tools. Also, different types of axioms are
> annotated in a different way, only some of them in a reification-style. So
> while RDF reification would on the one hand be used by users also for other
> things than creating OWL annotations, on the other hand it wouldn't cover
> axiom annotation completely. 
> 
> I still cannot precisely point to the bit which will definitely break the
> system, so I have to think more deeply about this topic, but I believe that
> there would be real hidden threads lurking around for some existing tools,
> if we would use the RDF reification vocabulary for annotations.
> 
> Anyway, the draft needs to be redrafted before we can send it. It's
> currently not in line with my discussion with TQ.
> 
> Michael
> 
>>Peter: if you don't hear anything to the contrary please send it off
>>tomorrow.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ian
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC5
> 
> --
> 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
> =======================================================================
>

Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 20:57:04 UTC