RE: questionable test document(s)

I thought we did not need to declare the use of xsd datatypes ...

Here:
we agreed:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0066

[[
A. Annotations & types:

A.1 types required on all non-builtin urirefs
A.2 types optional for builtin urirefs
     [builtin means something defined in our documents]
A.3 object of annotation property can be any uriref (see 1) or literal
     or blank node [xsd datatypes are builtins]
     [pfps: user-defined data types are another issue]
A.4 types requires on blank nodes [includes Lists]
A.5 top level directive in abstract syntax for annotation properties
A.6 permit annotations on annotations
]]

combining 
[xsd datatypes are builtins]
and
types optional for builtin urirefs
means that the test is correct (well at least the part you pick up on).


Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2003 18:54
> To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: questionable test document(s)
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I accidentally ran my syntax checker on some non-approved tests, and came
> up with some questionable test documents(s).  The one that I 
> first found is 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/consistent002.rdf
> 
> This file uses xsd:byte as a datatype ID without declaring it to 
> be of type
> rdfs:Datatype.  I believe that this means that the document is not in OWL
> DL.
> 
> I expect that other documents are also in this situation.
> 
> peter
>

Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 13:48:04 UTC