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

Concerning annotation properties

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:36:59 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309291536.59015.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I wonder whether S&AS CR accurately reflects the issue resolution of OWL DL 
Syntax, and whether it is in need of a minor correction.


My concern is with the following two rules in the abstract syntax, (and their 
associated mapping rules etc).

directive ::= ...
         | 'Annotation(' annotationPropertyID URIreference ')'

and

annotation ::= 'annotation(' annotationPropertyID URIreference ')'

As far as I can tell the agreed restriciton that 
"types required on all non-builtin urirefs"
is not effective in this case.

I note that the issue resolution


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0066

explicitly requires this
[[
A.1 types required on all non-builtin urirefs
A.3 object of annotation property can be any uriref (see 1) or literal
     or blank node [xsd datatypes are builtins]
]]

The "(see 1)" being the explicit requirement.

I have added test AnnotationProperty-003 as a proposed test which currently 
reflects my understanding of the issue resolution and not my understanding of 
the OWL CR.  (included below)

I will modify as require by WG resolution.

Jeremy

====

The following is a consistent OWL Full file.

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"      
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AnnotationProperty/consistent003#"
    xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AnnotationProperty/consistent003" 
>

  <owl:Class rdf:ID="A">
    <first:ap>
       <rdf:Description rdf:ID="B"/>
    </first:ap>
  </owl:Class>
  <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:ID="ap"/>

</rdf:RDF>
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 09:37:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT