ISSUE-72
Annotation Semantics
RESOLVED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Jeremy Carroll
- Opened on:
- 2007-11-20
- Description:
The semantics doc explicitly gives no semantics to annotations. This is not backwardly compatible with OWL 1.0 in which annotations have the RDFS semantics
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Agenda for Washington F2F (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-03-23)
- RE: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-01)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-02-01)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-01)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-25)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-01-24)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
- Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-23)
- possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2007-12-13)
- Annotation test cases (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-28)
- Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-11-26)
- RE: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise (from gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr on 2007-11-22)
- Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-22)
- ISSUE-72 (Annotation Semantics): REPORTED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-20)
Related notes:
2008-04-14 10:14:00: Resolved at F2F2 [1]: we are not committed to backward compatibility with respect to annotation semantics, given that the WG will attempt to improve annotation support in OWL 2.
[1]http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_16_entity_annotations
[Ian Horrocks]
Changelog:
2007-11-20 16:54:18: Created issue 'REPORTED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible' nickname Annotation Semantics owned by Jeremy Carroll on product , description ' The semantics doc explicitly gives no semantics to annotations. This is not backwardly compatible with OWL 1.0 in which annotations have the RDFS semantics ' non-public [Jeremy Carroll]
2007-12-02 13:32:47: title changed to 'ACCEPTED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible' [Ian Horrocks]
2007-12-02 13:32:47: Description changed to 'The semantics doc explicitly gives no semantics to annotations. This is not backwardly compatible with OWL 1.0 in which annotations have the RDFS semantics ' [Ian Horrocks]
2007-12-02 13:32:47: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]
2008-04-14 10:14:00: title changed to 'RESOLVED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible'
2008-04-14 10:14:00: Issue dissociated from any product
2008-04-14 10:14:00: Status changed to 'closed'