- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:30:28 -0500 (EST)
- To: michael.smith@eds.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com> Subject: RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:23:46 -0600 > Thanks, Peter. > > I sent out the wine.owl and food.owl ontologies in an earlier message. > See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0333.html > > The RDF validator seemed to like them. The following goes through > just fine. > > <rdf:RDF > xmlns = "http://www.example.org/wine.owl#" > xmlns:owl = "http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#" > xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:rdfs= "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"> > > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="locatedIn"> > <owl:TransitiveProperty /> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#Thing" /> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Region" /> > </owl:ObjectProperty> > > </rdf:RDF> > > But as I have been saying for some time, that's no guarantee > that you have syntactically correct OWL. > > - Mike I stand by my contention that the above is syntactically illegal RDF. It definitely does not have the correct OWL interpretation, as owl:TransitiveProperty is used as property. (Unless I am totally confused about RDF - the above appears to me to break RDF striping.) peter
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 16:30:38 UTC