RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

Thanks, Peter.

I sent out the wine.owl and food.owl ontologies in an earlier message.

The RDF validator seemed to like them.  The following goes through 
just fine.

  xmlns     = ""
  xmlns:owl = ""
  xmlns:rdf = ""
  xmlns:rdfs= "">

  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="locatedIn">
    <owl:TransitiveProperty />
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="" />
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Region" />


But as I have been saying for some time, that's no guarantee 
that you have syntactically correct OWL.

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider []
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31

I believe that the draft has some problems with its OWL syntax (actually, I
believe that the examples are not even valid RDF).  Many uses of
owl:TransitiveProperty and owl:SymmetricProperty are as

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="....">
 <owl:TransitiveProperty />

I believe that this must be changed to

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="....">
 <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty" />

I also worry about the repeated use of rdf:ID in the draft.  The pointer to
wine.owl doesn't go anywhere, however, so I can't check this.


PS: A pointer to wine.owl would be very useful.

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 16:24:09 UTC