W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [OWL] annotations and meta-modelling in OWL 1.1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:43:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20060110.064356.131777543.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk
Cc: Alan.Rector@manchester.ac.uk, owl@lists.mindswap.org, semantic-web@w3c.org

From: jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [OWL] annotations and meta-modelling in OWL 1.1
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:26:32 +0000

> 
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: "Jeff Z. Pan" <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [OWL] annotations and meta-modelling in OWL 1.1
> > Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:05:20 -0000
> >
> >> Hi Peter, Alan and all,

[...]

> >> 1. It is impossible to distinguish higher order statements from 
> >> annotations of
> >> symbols and
> >> artefacts we are using to represent that domain, as pointed out in Alan's
> >> email. The reason that they are not distinguishable is because 
> >> annotations in
> >> [1] are simply syntactic sugar of individual axioms.
> >
> > Yes,
> 
> OK.
> 
> > but what proposal does distinguish between higher-order statements and
> > annotations of symbols?
> 
> Higher-order statements (axioms about meta-classes and meta-properties) and
> annotations (in the sense of OWL DL) are two seperate things, I don't
> understand why we cannot distinguish them.

Yes, it would be possible, but what proposal on the table does currently have
both of them, distinguished?

> >> 2. Datatype axioms, unlike other axioms in OWL 1.1 [1], cannot have
> >> annotations. This seems pretty strange, at least to me. The reason is that
> >> although individuals, object properties and classes can share names, classes
> >> and datatypes cannot.
> >
> >> From the OWL 1.1 syntax document [1], recapitulating the OWL DL syntax:
> >
> > axiom ::= 'DatatypeProperty(' datavaluedPropertyID ['Deprecated'] { 
> > annotation }                { 'super(' datavaluedPropertyID ')'} 
> > ['Functional']
> >                { 'domain(' description ')' } { 'range(' dataRange ')' } ')'
> >
> > This sure looks as if datatype axioms can have annotations.
> 
> What I meant was
> 
> axiom ::= 'Datatype(' datatypeID 'base(' datatypeID ')' { 
> datatypeRestriction }
> ')'.
> 
> We don't have annotations here, don't we?

That is a bug, which will be fixed immediately.

> Cheers,
> Jeff

peter
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:11 UTC