RE: abstract syntax and RDFS

Peter responding to Jeremy:
> > The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral must not be blocked in this way.
> I disagree.  I'm very happy that rdf:XMLLiteral is not in OWL Lite or OWL
> DL.
> I explicitly allowed rdfs:comment and rdfs:label, although I am somewhat
> unhappy with allowing rdfs:comment.  I think that rdfs:seeAlso and
> rdfs:isDefinedBy have no place in OWL Lite or OWL DL.

I cannot live with this, see:

> > I believe that the annotations and Annotations would benefit from:
> > (a) having names that did not differ solely in case
> Maybe.

(OK - editorial discretion)

> > (b) used a new concept annotationPropertyID for there first URI
> > (and further points in another message to come).
> I don't see any particular purpose in this.

On later reflection, I think it is worth, requiring the first URIref to be
declared as either an owl:ObjectProperty or an owl:DatatypeProperty (for the
two different sorts of [aA]nnotation).

The advantages are:
- uniformity of the rule that you must declare all urirefs used
- somewhere to hang annotations on annotations
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="example">
This is used to annotate classes and properties to show an example use.
Typically its object is an XML Literal.
- permits the use of properties such as rdfs:comment or user defined
properties in both annotations and the ontology itself.

The disadvantages are:
- to retain semantic clarity it is necessary to prohibit all further
constraints on such properties (i.e. no range, domain, restrictions,
Functional, InverseFunctional, Symmetric, Transitive constraints)


Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 04:38:14 UTC