Comments: Representing specified values in OWL

My comment is editorial, essentially.

In the current examples the fact that ':johns_health', or ':John' are 
individuals, ie, of type OWL:Thing, can only be deduced by reading the 
text. The code itself only says that, for example:

:johns_health a :Good_health_value.

*IF* I know that all code here refers to OWL DL, then, of course one can 
deduce that :johns_health is an OWL:Thing, because we cannot have 
classes of classes. But the text does not say that, and this fact cannot 
be inferred if I use OWL Full. I think adding this explicitly to the 
examples may be better

Of course, the RDF/XML code will make it clearer, but it might be better 
to add it to the current code, too, IMHO.

Trivial typo: in variant 1 of Pattern 1, :John should be on a new line...


Thanks

Ivan


-- 

Ivan Herman
W3C Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/all?pictures=yes#ivan