W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:04:57 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221411981BD2@USPLM207>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I will change the Guide syntax.  As OWL this is clearly wrong.

In terms of RDF, how could it be malformed?  I thought a class 
could be a property could be an individual.  For example, in

<rdf:RDF
  xmlns     = "http://www.example.org/test#"
  xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:rdfs= "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">

  <rdf:Class rdf:ID="C1" /> 
  <rdf:Class rdf:ID="C2" /> 

  <rdf:Description rdf:ID="I2">
    <C2 rdf:resource="#I1" />
  </rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

The occurence of C2 in the defintion of I2 would just be treated 
as a property.  Right?


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:30 PM
To: michael.smith@eds.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31


From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Subject: RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:23:46 -0600

> Thanks, Peter.
> 
> I sent out the wine.owl and food.owl ontologies in an earlier message.
> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0333.html
> 
> The RDF validator seemed to like them.  The following goes through 
> just fine.
> 
> <rdf:RDF
>   xmlns     = "http://www.example.org/wine.owl#"
>   xmlns:owl = "http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#"
>   xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>   xmlns:rdfs= "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
> 
>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="locatedIn">
>     <owl:TransitiveProperty />
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#Thing" />
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Region" />
>   </owl:ObjectProperty>
> 
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> But as I have been saying for some time, that's no guarantee 
> that you have syntactically correct OWL.
> 
> - Mike

I stand by my contention that the above is syntactically illegal RDF.  It
definitely does not have the correct OWL interpretation, as
owl:TransitiveProperty is used as property.  (Unless I am totally confused
about RDF - the above appears to me to break RDF striping.)

peter
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 17:05:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT