- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:40:12 -0400
- To: public comments <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Does that always some redefinition error? See: http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/ Validator?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl&level=Full&abstr act=yes Note that a lot of daml follows the "add some random daml or rdf import statements": ---------- Test case: http://mindswap.org/~bparsia/ontologies/test/importowl.owl One result: http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/ Validator?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmindswap.org%2F%7Ebparsia%2Fontologies%2Ftest %2Fimportowl.owl&level=Full&abstract=yes ---------- Should validators tread http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl as special? Or should my importowl.owl and owl.owl itself be examples of a """3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace These tests use one document. It is named badNNN.rdf. This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name that is not defined by the OWL recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD give a warning. """ Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 18:40:03 UTC