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

Re: TEST I5.24 - 004 was RE: Partial? regrets May 1st

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:39:04 +0100
Message-ID: <16057.28392.807224.56927@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

The syntax of the test is now fixed, the parser now parses it, and
FaCT confirms the entailment.



On May 6, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> Ian
> > p.s. I believe that this is yet another example illustrating how
> > crazy it is to try to write OWL in RDF syntax without tool support -
> > even we (the "experts") can't get it right!
> I am finding having a syntax checker really handy - even with the OWL Full 
> tests where the syntax checker is technically useless, (the file is OWL Full 
> necessarily), asking it why it is not OWL DL is certainly interesting.
> This particular example was labelled OWL Full - if I had asked why I would 
> have a surprise.
> I am getting more taken with OWL DL as time goes on.
> Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 16:39:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT