Re: rdfs:subClassOf on Annotation Properties for Dublin Core in OWL

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> So what are they? AnnotationProperties or regular Properties? I am not 
> sure that "dc:source" should always be an annotation property. What if 
> this property is attached to something other than an OWL class? Are you 
> saying that we should have multiple Dublic Core ontologies specific to 
> each class of things that they are being attached to? Perhaps, well then 
> we really do need a RDDL between a namespace URI and an OWL definition 
> so that we can switch between possibly 3 different ontologies (Lite, DL, 
> Full) for each QName/URIref.
> I am worried that this is going to cause a whole host of 
> interoperability problems, and be downright confusing ( /me again 
> following the rule of thumb that if I am confused, other folks will 
> probably also be confused)
> Perhaps we should forget AnnotationProperties and just say that OWL 
> DL/Lite ignores things attached to owl:Classes that it doesn't 
> understand -- i.e. just treat all unknown properties attached to an OWL 
> DL/Lite class as an annotation....

Personally I believed that it would work to not have AnnotationProperty's 
per se but allow ObjectProperties and DatatypeProperties to be used on 
classes (and other things) as long as they were not used in domain and 
range constraints or restrictions or inverseOf ...

We discussed this earlier in the year, and others argued that it was 
clearer to keep annotation property as a distinct syntactic category 
clearly identified as such.

I think that dc:creator is:
a) likely to be useful on owl:Ontology's and owl:Class's
b) likely to be useful with owl:Restriction

If one combines work that takes the former use, and work that takes the 
latter viewpoint you must be in Full.

Currently we would need to have:

1) RDFS defns of dc:creator
2) owl:AnnotationProperty defn of dc:creator
3) owl:DatatypeProperty defn of dc:creator

and in some scenarios one needs to combine 2) and 3) - far from ideal, 
possibly good enough.


Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 10:35:45 UTC