Same comment (roughly) as:
Bijan suggests same response.
Ian: I removed the final sentence:
"We strongly encourage you to collaborate with that commentator to design a "de facto standard" for extended annotations."
Seems inappropriate and open to misinterpretation. Otherwise looks good to me.
Subject: [LC response] To Umberto Straccia
Thank you for your comment
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
While we appreciate the use case raised in your comment, we found that the specification and technical difficulties of adding such a feature at this time outweigh the benefits it would bring. The working group has, therefore, decided to make no change to OWL 2 in response to your comment.
Please note that a similar issue was raised in the first last call round and there is a more detailed discussion in that reply:
The work-arounds in that message are mostly relevant here as well.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
I kindly ask to take into consideration the possibility to allow a
As far as I understand, a Class can be annotated, but not a ClassExpression.
The advantage of such (apparently harmless) extension would allow a smooth encoding of "fuzzy OWL2" in OWL2 via annotations.
Regards, -Umberto Straccia