Re: abstract syntax and RDFS

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:42:37 +0100
• To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <200301202242.38002.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On Monday 20 Jan 2003 10:26 pm, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> In conducting my still unfinished review of the mapping rules I noticed
> that no RDFS schema is an OWL DL document.
>

I also missed the following rule from section 4.2

[[
the abstract syntax form does not mention any of the URI references from the 
RDF, RDFS, or OWL namespaces that are given special meaning in RDF, RDFS, or 
OWL except owl:Thing and owl:Nothing.
]] 

The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral must not be blocked in this way.

I think the following RDF and RDFS properties and classes are cool in 
annotations and Annotations:
   rdfs:comment
   rdfs:label
   rdfs:seeAlso
   rdfs:isDefinedBy

I believe that the annotations and Annotations would benefit from:
(a) having names that did not differ solely in case
(b) used a new concept annotationPropertyID for there first URI
(and further points in another message to come).

Jeremy

  

Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 16:41:45 UTC