- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:06:46 -0800
- To: "'Gary Ng'" <Gary.Ng@networkinference.com>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
> My opinion is that this is not necessarily a specification issue. > > At the tool level you can certainly have a GUI in which > annotations are declared and used as you have described, but > IMO this does not require any modifications to the current spec. > > For example, you can make use of another annotation property > to denote the range for other Aps, Or use a "meta" ontology > (an extension of the rdfs of owl) at the tool level. Yes, this would be a work-around. But then I would have to introduce a new non-standard annotation property that other tools will not understand. From my point of view, the allowed values of an annotation property are of general relevance, not only for editors but also to inform users of my ontology about the intended usage of the annotation properties I define. In addition, I think the OWL specification is already complicating enough: I don't see any reason why there should be a different mechanism for specifying annotation properties than for other properties. This is not only confusing but also means an unnecessary implementation overhead. Why don't we simply regard owl:AnnotationProperty similar to owl:FunctionalProperty, so that it can be attached as a "flag" to any other property? Regards, Holger
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:04:21 UTC