Re: Datatype (Map) Conformance Strangeness

On 10 Apr 2009, at 23:41, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> I agree with you that this has got rather confused. I think that the  
> problem is twofold:
>
> 1) I added the (redundant) note about conformant ontology documents  
> in the wrong place -- this could actually be part of the definition  
> of an OWL 2 DL ontology document (it is redundant because the  
> condition is already one of the conditions that an ontology must  
> satisfy in order to be an OWL 2 ontology as specified in Section 3  
> of SS&FS).

/me notes that this sort of thing is one of the problems with  
redundancy.

Avoid it! :)

Cheers,
Bijan.