RE: description-logic/consistency605

Jeremy,

Down below, you indicate that the relative URIs should not begin with / or .
The cases I have found (10 or so different files) all have relative URIs that start with /
See the example contained in my note below. 

So my question remains, is this legal syntax?

chas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Horrocks 
> Sent: 13 September 2003 04:26
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: description-logic/consistency605
> 
> 
> 
> On September 13, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> > 
> > Charles:
> > > Note the two instances of /2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty 
> - is that correct? 
> > > I don't think so.
> > > I would be surprised if anyones parser would pass this.
> > 
> >  </rdfs:subPropertyOf>
> >   <rdf:type rdf:resource="/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/>
> >  </owl:ObjectProperty>
> >  <owl:ObjectProperty 
> rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#rxa"/>
> >  <owl:ObjectProperty 
> rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#rx">
> >   <rdf:type rdf:resource="/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/>
> >  </owl:ObjectProperty>
> > 
> > > Can someone in the know check this out?
> > 
> > 
> > Technically these are fine.
> > 
> > The form /2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty is a relative URI 
> which resolves 
> > against the base URI of 
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/consistent605
> > 
> > as
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty
> > 
> > I agree these forms are surpising, we could modify 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#style
> > appendix B stylistic preferences, 
> > perhaps by adding a sentence to section B.2 on xml:base e.g.
> > 
> > [[
> > Relative URIs used in the tests should not begin with "/" or ".".
> > ]]
> > 
> > If we agreed that then the change to description-logic-605 
> and and other 
> > affected tests would be editorial.
> > 
> > Anyone else have an opinion.
> > 
> > Peter and Ian both spoke recently strongly opposing making some other tests 
> > easier. I wonder if they would oppose this change too. It would make this 
> > test easier, but perhaps in an area where the WG does not want to include 
> > unnecessary difficulties.
> > 
> > (I am neutral - HP software deals with this fine, but I don't see it as 
> > critical to not simplify this test)
> 
> I have always argued for making the *syntax* as simple as possible, so
> I don't have a serious problem with the proposed change. However, if
> the current tests remain legal syntax (even if they don't conform to
> the preferred style), then I believe that we should keep at least one
> example in the test suite.
> 
> Ian
> 
> > 
> > Jeremy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 14:53:27 UTC