- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:00:10 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Working through the abstract syntax it seems that virtually any OWL Lite or
OWL DL file needs to include the somewhat interesting triples
owl:Thing rdf:type owl:Class .
owl:Thing subClassOf owl:Thing .
Have I misunderstood? It might be a typo in the abstract syntax mappings.
e.g.
suppose we want to say
<a> <p> <b> .
To get this triple,
we have to use the rule from the mappings:
Individual(<iID>
<annotation1> … <annotationn>
type(<type1>)…type(<typen>)
(<pID1> <value1>) … (<pIDn> <valuen>))
which has a T(owl:Thing) in its production.
This must use the classID rule that includes
owl:Thing rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing .
in its production.
I don't see the need for the
<classID> rdf:subClassOf owl:Thing .
triple in the second row of the table, ever.
Is this not implicit with the
<classID> rdf:type owl:Class .
triple?
Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:56:53 UTC