Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches

A single test case that explains two of the substantive differences is:

<eg:a> owl:UnambiguousProperty <eg:b> .

Under the current S&AS editors draft this entails (in DL)

owl:UnambiguousProperty rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .

and

<eg:a> rdf:type owl:Ontology.

This breaks semantic layering (neither entailment holds in OWL Full), and
contradicts our earlier decision that using the uri owl:UnambiguousProperty
is an error
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#approvedIssue-I3.4-UnambiguousProperty


Jeremy

(Specific relevant differences:

> Jeremy  - all names need rdf:type triples
> S&AS    - ontologies and annotation properties do not need rdf:type
triples

> Jeremy - forbids unused owl: vocabulary (but not unused rdf: rdfs: or xsd:
> 	 vocabulary)
> S&AS   - allows any unused vocabulary

PS: I see it as up to RDF Core to describe behaviour with unused rdf: and
rdfs: vocab.
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace
[Any other names are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when
encountered, but should otherwise behave normally.]

I note that there is no such constraint on RDFS and I have sent a late
comment to that effect.
)