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 16:19:01 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221411981C27@USPLM207>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org


> PS: In general, I think that OWL should completely avoid rdf:ID, instead
>     using RDF:about.

Should the Guide suggest this as good practice?

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:06 PM
To: michael.smith@eds.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31


More syntax problems.

Due to the single-ID constraint on RDF, it is probably a mistake to use

<owl:Thing rdf:ID="#OffDry">
  <owl:sameClassAs rdf:resource="&vin;OffDry" />
</owl:Thing>

Also, this makes a URI resource like ffff##OffDry, which is probably not
what was intended.

Instead use

<owl:Class rdf:about="#OffDry">
  <owl:sameClassAs rdf:resource="&vin;OffDry" />
</owl:Class>

Note, also the change from owl:Thing to owl:Class.   This is needed to stay
within OWL/DL.

peter

PS: In general, I think that OWL should completely avoid rdf:ID, instead
    using RDF:about.
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 17:19:12 GMT

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