RE: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest

Peter F. Patel-Schneider answered to Alan Ruttenberg:

>> On May 7, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> > It turns out that in OWL 1 the validity of RDF graphs as OWL DL
>> > ontologies in RDF graph form was only determined for imports
>> > closures.
>> > *This is a bad thing.* The agreed-on situation in OWL 2 is much
>> > better.
>>
>> Which agreed-up situation are you referring to? I was unaware that
>> this was a resolved issue.
>>
>> -Alan
>
>>From F2F2 minutes:
>
>RESOLVED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved,
>as per Boris' proposal
>(http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to
>include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and
>ObjectProperties.
>
>The general situation in OWL 2 dates back to the OWL 1.1 member
>submission, but it had to be modified due to issues raised with respect
>to duplication of vocabulary.
>
>
>peter

(A first testcase for my ACTION-147 to review the implementation of Boris' 
proposal! :))

>From slide 3 of the proposal:

  If a URI u is used as an object property
  in an ontology O then the import closure of O...

    ... must contain a declaration saying that
    u is an object property

    ... must not contain a declaration saying that
    u is a data or an annotation property

And slide 4 modifies the grammar of the functional syntax to take these 
import-closure-wide declarations of properties into account.

So without regarding the import closure, it is not possible to tell whether
an 
OWL 2 DL ontology -- in particular one in RDF graph form -- is valid or not,

right?

Michael