RE: Annotations and non-mon example

> *However*, in the abstract syntax this is not an addition of new
>  information.  Instead, it is a *change*.  Therefore there is no
>  non-monotonicity.

Yes ...., but that is angels on pinheads stuff.

Could I suggest it would be clearer with a new rdfs:Class
and we require all annotation properties to be of this class.

This is not my preferred solution, which I have already posted; but is
intended as the least change proposal that makes the current text a little
more tractable.

This has the following positive effects:
1: Greater uniformity in the everything has a class rule (hence easier to
understand for the naive user)
2: Better reflecting the abstract syntax distinctions (between three types
of property: DatatypeProperty, ObjectProperty and annotations) in the
concrete syntax
3: More robust against user error (like forgetting a DatatypeProperty


Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 09:42:34 UTC