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
>>   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
>>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
>>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

well, I just can't for the moment
I would object (for the first time) and on charter grounds

This Working Group, part of the Semantic Web Activity,
will focus on the development of a language to *extend*
the semantic reach of current XML and RDF meta-data efforts.

extend, not take away

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA

Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 17:50:15 UTC