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

From: "Jeff Z. Pan" <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [OWL] annotations and meta-modelling in OWL 1.1
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:59:57 +0000

[...]

> >> 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.

It does?  Does OWL FA really distinguish between statements about names of
things (annotations) and statements about their meaning (including higher-order
statements)?

[...]

> 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?

Yes, as the syntactic category of annotations in OWL 1.1 includes stating
values for non-annotation properties.

> 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?

I'm not convinced that it has no use.

> Cheers,
> 
> Jeff.

peter

Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 11:25:30 UTC