- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:25:20 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
<snip> > The owl:AnnotationProperty idea comes from seeing it as a mistake to have a > distinct syntactic category that is defined in the concrete syntax by an > absence of information rather than by the presence of information. > > My preferred solution merges the syntactic category of annotation property > with the other syntactic categories of properties - ending up with five > different categories of property in the abstract syntax, but only two markers > (owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty) in the concrete syntax. That last paragraph I find completely acceptable and for our machines only the concrete RDF syntax matters and the abstract syntax is only a means to that end. (Aside) Annotations should be in all OWL levels and their meaning should be the same as what the triples mean in RDF model theory. That's what I meant that we cannot take that meaning out. -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 08:26:03 UTC