- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:50:45 -0500
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Hello, > > It is true that these resources are allowed in OWL ontologies; however, they do not belong to Table 3 of Syntax. This table simply > lists the vocabulary elements from the rdf, rdfs, owl, and xsd namespaces that have special meaning in OWL 2. That is, vocabulary > elements from Table 3 can be used in the ontologies in functional-style syntax even though they are in one of the built-in > namespaces. > > In contrast, owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DepretatedProperty cannot be used in ontologies in functional-style syntax. They are part > of the reserved vocabulary, just like, say, owl:someValuesFrom. OK, then I think it might be good to clarify the text, which currently says: "All other URIs from the reserved vocabulary constitute the disallowed vocabulary of OWL 2 and must not be used in OWL 2 ontologies" Perhaps add "as expressed in the functional syntax" ? -Alan > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg >> Sent: 11 November 2008 07:54 >> To: W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: Syntax: Table 3 >> >> >> is missing owl:DeprecatedClass, owl:DeprecatedProperty which are >> allowed in OWL ontologies according to table 16 of the RDF mapping. >> >> -Alan > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 05:04:12 UTC