Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

> > 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.
>
> I don't see that there.  The extension of a class is defined on the
> next table, not this one.  Even there, there is no notion of changing the
> extension of a class.
>
> > Annotations now seem to be so powerful
> > (at least compared to coming from no power)
> > that I can't see all the consequences.
>
> I think that you are misreading the revised semantics.

Right, I was misreading, it is indeed
[[
For Individual constructs the situation is a bit different.  Here the
``extension'' of the Individual construct is indeed a subset of set of
domain elements that have the correct annotations.  However, this is
precisely what is needed for Individual constructs with no name, and it
works just as well for Individual constructs that provide a name.
]]

but then that would mean that to have a non empty individual
all appropriate annotations have to in the KB, right?


> > 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).
>
> Well, this was the entire idea.

Assuming that is the idea, then when such
triples are exchanged in RDF/XML how can
we ever know that they are special?
I also guess that sameAs would apply to
their URIreference/dataLiteral arguments.

> > I'm in shock...
> >
> > -- ,
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> The basic idea is that annotations on classes, and properties, and
> ontologies require the presence of the correct annotation triple.
>
> For Individual constructs the situation is a bit different.  Here the
> ``extension'' of the Individual construct is indeed a subset of set of
> domain elements that have the correct annotations.  However, this is
> precisely what is needed for Individual constructs with no name, and it
> works just as well for Individual constructs that provide a name.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 19:07:10 UTC