W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: questionable test document(s)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:21:27 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

I thought we did not need to declare the use of xsd datatypes ...

we agreed:

A. Annotations & types:

A.1 types required on all non-builtin urirefs
A.2 types optional for builtin urirefs
     [builtin means something defined in our documents]
A.3 object of annotation property can be any uriref (see 1) or literal
     or blank node [xsd datatypes are builtins]
     [pfps: user-defined data types are another issue]
A.4 types requires on blank nodes [includes Lists]
A.5 top level directive in abstract syntax for annotation properties
A.6 permit annotations on annotations

[xsd datatypes are builtins]
types optional for builtin urirefs
means that the test is correct (well at least the part you pick up on).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2003 18:54
> To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: questionable test document(s)
> Hi:
> I accidentally ran my syntax checker on some non-approved tests, and came
> up with some questionable test documents(s).  The one that I 
> first found is 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/consistent002.rdf
> This file uses xsd:byte as a datatype ID without declaring it to 
> be of type
> rdfs:Datatype.  I believe that this means that the document is not in OWL
> DL.
> I expect that other documents are also in this situation.
> peter
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 13:48:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC