Re: proposal to close ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1

On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> If there is another declaration somewhere else in the imports closure
>> that declares foo as an ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty, or
>> AnnotationProperty, then this graph will be acceptable. That is the
>> expected use case.
>
> So the graph has to
> 1/ use the OWL vocabulary (owl:imports, at least)
No. Another ontology has to use owl:imports to import *it*.
> 2/ use a property in a way acceptable to OWL (e.g., only object  
> values)
Yes. But anything is acceptable because the property could be  
declared an AnnotationProperty.
> 3/ have "incorrect" typing (e.g.., rdf:Property instead of  
> owl:ObjectProperty)
Yes. The graph we are talking about was not authored for use with  
OWL. It was authored as an RDF file.
> 4/ import another graph that fixes up the typing
No. See 1.

-Alan