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 Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester

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