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

owl:imports http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:40:12 -0400
To: public comments <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E33E4200-F2CD-11D7-BD79-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>

Does that always some redefinition error?

See:

http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/ 
Validator?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl&level=Full&abstr 
act=yes

Note that a lot of daml follows the "add some random daml or rdf import  
statements":
----------
Test case: http://mindswap.org/~bparsia/ontologies/test/importowl.owl

One result:  
http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/ 
Validator?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmindswap.org%2F%7Ebparsia%2Fontologies%2Ftest 
%2Fimportowl.owl&level=Full&abstract=yes
----------

Should validators tread http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl as special?

Or should my importowl.owl and owl.owl itself be examples of a

"""3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace

These tests use one document. It is named badNNN.rdf. This document  
includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name that is not  
defined by the OWL recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD give a  
warning. """

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 18:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT