RE: Annotations and non-mon example

At 15:42 +0100 1/31/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>  > *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
>   owl:AnnotationProperty
>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

I could live with this (in fact, as a tool builder it would be useful 
- because we could use subclasses of annotationProperty to do some 
nice management things - like knowing which policy to assign to which 
annotation etc) Would be useful in Full as well as in Lite/DL, but in 
Full it would just not be required - so a nice one w/minimal changes 
and fairly easy to document.
  Speaking not as program chair, but as AC rep for an organization 
that builds Owl tools,  I would be able to support this proposal
Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 16:39:53 UTC