My comment is editorial, essentially. In the current examples the fact that ':johns_health', or ':John' are individuals, ie, of type OWL:Thing, can only be deduced by reading the text. The code itself only says that, for example: :johns_health a :Good_health_value. *IF* I know that all code here refers to OWL DL, then, of course one can deduce that :johns_health is an OWL:Thing, because we cannot have classes of classes. But the text does not say that, and this fact cannot be inferred if I use OWL Full. I think adding this explicitly to the examples may be better Of course, the RDF/XML code will make it clearer, but it might be better to add it to the current code, too, IMHO. Trivial typo: in variant 1 of Pattern 1, :John should be on a new line... Thanks Ivan -- Ivan Herman W3C Head of Offices C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153; URL: http://www.w3.org/People/all?pictures=yes#ivanReceived on Thursday, 5 August 2004 06:09:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:12 GMT