- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:13:16 -0400
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 13:14:01 UTC