- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:40 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
A single test case that explains two of the substantive differences is: <eg:a> owl:UnambiguousProperty <eg:b> . Under the current S&AS editors draft this entails (in DL) owl:UnambiguousProperty rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty . and <eg:a> rdf:type owl:Ontology. This breaks semantic layering (neither entailment holds in OWL Full), and contradicts our earlier decision that using the uri owl:UnambiguousProperty is an error http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#approvedIssue-I3.4-UnambiguousProperty Jeremy (Specific relevant differences: > Jeremy - all names need rdf:type triples > S&AS - ontologies and annotation properties do not need rdf:type triples > Jeremy - forbids unused owl: vocabulary (but not unused rdf: rdfs: or xsd: > vocabulary) > S&AS - allows any unused vocabulary PS: I see it as up to RDF Core to describe behaviour with unused rdf: and rdfs: vocab. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace [Any other names are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when encountered, but should otherwise behave normally.] I note that there is no such constraint on RDFS and I have sent a late comment to that effect. )
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 06:03:35 UTC