Hi Birte, just a quick reaction to your question below On 2010-3-19 07:49 , Birte Glimm wrote: [skip] > > > > What is no longer in the Direct Semantics regime is the "combined > > semantics", which modified OWL 2 Direct Semantics to also take into > > account non-logical stuff such as annotations. I much prefer not > > changing the entailment relations from other specs. I can see that > > users want to query for annotation, but I would prefer to at least > > have an additional custom regime that is an extension of the Direct > > Semantics regime. Any opinions? Put it back in? Add an additional > > extended direct semantics regime? Wait whether we get complaints? > > I am in favour of a clean definition, ie, to the fact that you removed that stuff. As for what to do: isn't it correct that the same graph, if queried with simple semantics, could be used to query annotations? We are not 100% sure yet how the user will switch between different entailment regimes, but that might be the solution... Hm... I can see one issue, and that is the import of other ontologies. Simple entailment will not take care of the import semantics:-( So maybe the custom regime is simply: simple entailment after the transitive closure of imports... At the moment waiting to get complaints might be the good solution:-) Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:02 UTC