My (editorial) comment refers to Approach #2, but is also valid elsewhere. The text (as well as the code) says: :LionSubject a :Lion. and, sort of, makes the implicit conclusion that this also means :LionSubject a owl:Thing. However, as far as I understand, this is not true per se *unless* we know in advance that we are in OWL DL or OWL Light. If we do not know that about an ontology, then there is nothing that precludes :LionSubject to be also an owl:Class. Because the essence of the text is to emphasize using individuals at that point to make it clearly DL, I think it would be better to explicitly say: :LionSubject a owl:Thing; a :Lion . the same holds for a number of examples later in the text, and the N3/XML codes. -- Ivan Herman W3C Communications Team, 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/Ivan/Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 13:15:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:17 GMT