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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> 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?

At least OWL FA does.


>> >> 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.

> The OWL 1.1 syntax document, available at
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html
> has been changed (very) slightly.  The wording has been changed in a 
> few places
> to make the intent clearer.  Annotations have been added to the syntax for
> datatype axioms to fix a minor bug in the syntax.

I am not sure if the following sentences (from [1]) arecorrect:  "With this
change, non-annotation properties can be placed on any name.  The property
applies to the use of the name as an individual. As a simple syntactic sugar,
non-annotation properties can be part of certain class and property axioms. "
Can we put non-annotation properties on datatype names?


As suggested in earlier emails, the main concern that I have is what 
the uses of
the punning semantics are. We appreciate that it is easy, but if it has 
no use,
why do we bother to adopt it in OWL 1.1?

Cheers,

Jeff.
--


[1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html
[2] http://www.mindswap.org/2005/OWLWorkshop/sub15.pdf
[3]
http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/Boris-Motik-On-the-Properties-of-Metamodeling-in-OWL.pdf
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
> [5] Jos de Bruijn, Enrico Franconi, Sergio Tessaris (2005). Logical  
> Reconstruction of normative RDF. Proc. of the Workshosp on OWL  
> Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2005), Galway, Ireland, November 
> 2005.

Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 11:08:09 UTC