- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:34:21 -0500
- To: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Austin Tate wrote: > We want to be careful about adding many attributes for annotations... Well, I'm mostly talking about avoiding proliferating roughly equivalent properties. Dublin Core is a central vocabulary. > much like we want to try to cluster the various attributes of OWL-S > into more fundamental classes of things. > > I suggest that all annotations in OWL-S are clustered into a single > "annotation" type that we can then sub-class into desirable sets of > different notations with different types or properties. Well, that's the design for *some* parts of OWL-S, namely serviceParameter.That's *not* the design for some other properties, like textDescription. I don't much care about making Yet Another Wrapper for dublin core without a direct motivation. Dublin Core doesn't work that way, so we'd have to rework that. Pfft. > So all textural/string attributes can be clustered and it can be > understood when some are related to others - e.g. different language > variants of a textual description or tooltip. Usually done with an xml:lang. > I suggest that all annotations are of form key=value where arbitrarily > complex values are allows... and (but this is less obvious) I think > reasonably complex keys might be useful... not restricted to some > simple symbol name. I would love if the Dublin Core got more sophisticated about complex content. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 11:34:25 UTC