- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:02:34 -0400
- To: public comments <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
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