Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports from Jonathan Borden on 2003-02-12 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from February 2003)

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:48:28 -0500
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <002601c2d2e8$dcf514d0$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>

pat hayes wrote:
>
> I do not feel that special annotation properties are either necessary
> or desirable. The only case for them seems to be Peter's being
> worried that allowing annotations to be regular assertions might in
> some unspecified way cause problems of some unspecified nature. I do
> not believe that there are any such problems.
>

I basically agree, though I'd phrase it differently:

My gut instinct tells me that mucking around with such semantic changes at
this stage in the game ought not be done without careful consideration and
only for a really really good reason -- i.e. to fix a showstopper problem.

For a dummy: why would "annotation properties" be fundamentally different
than any other properties whose object is an untyped literal string?

Jonathan

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:11:20 UTC