W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > August 2003

Fwd: O rdf:type Ontology repeatable? (was Re: O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional?)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:02:34 -0400
To: public comments <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DEBE268B-C9D2-11D7-9419-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>

Sorry, mail program picking on me.

Begin forwarded message:

> On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 02:25  PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 01:36  PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> [snip prior comment]
>> Whoops, I forgot to add:
>> 	What happens with multiple O rdf:type owl:Ontology s?
>> Reference says that there are "generally *at most* one" (emph added). 
>> I see several reading of the mapping table reversed, including having 
>> to generate two Ontology(...)s which differ only by their Annotation 
>> > s.
> Ok, I missed ontologyProperties, which require mulitple X rdf:type 
> owl:Ontology s. Ok, but I don't quite see what prevents one from 
> taking the subsequent rdf:type owl:Ontology s as input to the 
> Ontology() productions. E.g., if the URIReference appears in the 
> object position of some Annotation, is it barred from being the O of 
> some Ontology(...)? What if it occurs as both subject and object? (I 
> don't know *why* one would do that, but it certainly seems perfectly 
> possible (e.g., with a foo:latestVersionOf ontologyProperty).
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 15:00:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:29 UTC