Re: question about DL/Lite semantics

> 
> It should.  (Well it should if ``individual'' was changed to
> ``Individual''.)
> 

Surely an abstract syntax is less picky than a concrete one? :-)


> Ah yes, this is a problem because the requirement on typing individuals is
> only for individualIDs.  The best fix is to require that an Individual(...)
> axiom without an individual ID and without any type gets typed as
> owl:Thing.  I will add this.

This relates to my homework in that this is a blank node without a type.
With the clarification about the annotation, I conclude that it may be 
possible to allow any blank node to not have a type, as long as there is 
at least one other triple including the node.

More detail later (next week probably). I will try and send the B1 B2 
proof to the list tomorrow.


Jeremy