Re: owl:Ontology in abstract syntax

From: Jeremy Carroll <>
Subject: Re: owl:Ontology in abstract syntax
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:49:51 +0100


> I note there are still a few bugs:
> e.g. no rule for empty sequences (main node is rdf:nil).


> I think the Class rule should be split into three cases:
> - partial with no descriptions
> - with one description
> - with two or more descriptions

Done. No descriptions are also allowed.


> I think the use of both annotation and Annotation as two distinct syntactic
> constructs is poor naming - how about "OntologyAnotation" and "annotation"?

Not done.

> The abstract syntax should require at least one description in complete
> Class constructs.

Not done.  It is a bit silly to define a synonym for owl:Thing in this way,
but why forbid it?

> The cardinality rules currently require the use of xsd:decimal in owl Lite
> and OWL DL. It might be better to:
>   a) use xsd:nonNegativeInteger


>   b) explicitly permit any type derived by restriction from xsd:decimal as
> long as the value is in the value space of xsd:nonNegativeInteger

Done (in today's changes).  This is a special case, but it does appear to
be benign.



Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 08:18:28 UTC