Re: questionable test document(s)

You are correct.  I was misreading the situation (and S&AS!).

peter


From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: questionable test document(s)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:21:27 +0200

> 
> 
> 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 14:18:05 UTC