- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:10:09 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
In the EC Extension Table
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/semantics-all.html#description-interpretations
I see that the extension of a class is now intersected
with sets of elements for which the annotations are in A.
Annotations now seem to be so powerful
(at least compared to coming from no power)
that I can't see all the consequences.
On the other hand, the so called annotation "triples"
(NOT to confuse with RDF triples) are so
weak that no entailement other than belonging to A
can be done with them (seems to me).
I'm in shock...
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Peter F.
Patel-Schneider" To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
<pfps@research.bell cc:
-labs.com> Subject: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to
Sent by: support annotations and fix problem with imports
www-webont-wg-reque
st@w3.org
2003-02-07 08:03 PM
I spent a bit of time fiddling with the abstract syntax and direct
semantics to handle annotations and imports in a better manner.
The basic changes are
1/ add an option ontology name to the abstract syntax
2/ add an annotation triple set to the direct semantics
3/ have annotations require triples in the annotation triple set
4/ ontology annotations and imports directives also require triples in this
same set, using the ontology name as the subject
5/ imports is handled in a more semantic fashion
I think that this gets much closer to the RDF solution.
The changed version can be seen under
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/
I have not made any changes to the later sections of the document.
Comments are welcome.
peter
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 18:10:48 UTC