Re: ISSUE-157 Draft response [was Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS reference document]

On 9 Dec 2008, at 14:34, Alistair Miles wrote:

>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> First let me say I like the story the Primer tells about documentation
> properties, would like to keep it that way if at all possible.
>
> So given the primer's position, we have to try to find a way to
> satisfy Peter w.r.t. the data model.
>
> Personally, I could live with it if we keep the Primer as is and
> implement the changes proposed by Guus. It would not be ideal, but I
> could live with it, especially as I expect most SKOS developers will
> come to SKOS through the Primer, and will not be concerned with
> description logics compatibility.
>
> I'm now trying to think of alternatives.
>
> It might be an option to make all the documentation properties
> instances of owl:AnnotationProperty, rather than
> owl:ObjectProperty. But then we have the sub-property axioms to worry
> about. From [1] I see this may be acceptable for OWL 2: "There are
> only three axioms that can be used on annotation properties:
> AnnotationPropertyDomain, AnnotationPropertyRange and
> SubAnnotationPropertyOf axioms. These special annotation axioms have
> no semantics in OWL DL, but the normal semantics in OWL Full via their
> mapping to the standard RDF vocabulary." I guess this would be a
> moderately substantial change. I could live with this.

I could also live with this, in fact I'd be happy to support this  
proposal. I believe it would provide a more consistent story with the  
change of the labelling properties to annotations. I don't see it as  
a substantial change, and believe that if we can justify the change  
of the labelling properties, then we can justify the change of the  
documentation properties.

	Sean

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer

Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 15:45:58 UTC