Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31 (goofy TranstiveProperty use)

On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 15:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> 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.)

While it actually is syntactically
legal RDF, I'm sure it doesn't say what you meant.
It says
	locatedIn owl:TransitiveProperty "".

I'm pretty sure what you meant was:

   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="locatedIn">
     <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#TransitiveProperty" />
     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/@@/owl#Thing" />
     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Region" />
   </owl:ObjectProperty>

i.e.
	locatedIn rdf:type ObjectProperty.
	locatedIn rdf:type TransitiveProperty.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 16:58:12 UTC