W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2017

Re: [w3c/sdw] implemented resolution 10 to 13 of call 28-02-17 (#592)

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:41:35 +0100
Message-ID: <58BEAA7F.2060101@emse.fr>
To: Maxime Lefran├žois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, w3c/sdw <reply+00ae32b82e98c58e2ec26af6e3ada1b78f8f938b73e9fde892cf0000000114d65caf92a16>, w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
CC: Author <author@noreply.github.com>
Maxime, others,

On 07/03/2017 13:08, Maxime Lefran├žois wrote:
> [skip]
> As far as I can remember, I always lightened the RDF document that
> introduce OWL ontologies instances of owl:Restriction. I think my
> initial decision to do so was motivated by:
>   - the domain of owl:onProperty in https://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# is
> owl:Restriction

The file that you are linking to says at the top in a literal, among 
other things:

"the descriptions provided in this ontology *do not provide a complete 
and correct formal description* of either the syntax or the semantics of 
the introduced terms (please see the OWL 2 recommendations for the 
complete and normative specifications). Furthermore, the information 
provided by this ontology may be misleading if not used with care."

(my emphasis)

This file is of no relevance to anything when discussing things related 
to OWL. It is meant to help RDF/Linked Data processors that are dealing 
with OWL terms.

It is good emphasising this every so often because there are every once 
in a while people referring to this file as a justification for dealing 
with OWL the way they do.

Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 12:42:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:04 UTC