- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:06:01 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > It should. (Well it should if ``individual'' was changed to > ``Individual''.) > Surely an abstract syntax is less picky than a concrete one? :-) > Ah yes, this is a problem because the requirement on typing individuals is > only for individualIDs. The best fix is to require that an Individual(...) > axiom without an individual ID and without any type gets typed as > owl:Thing. I will add this. This relates to my homework in that this is a blank node without a type. With the clarification about the annotation, I conclude that it may be possible to allow any blank node to not have a type, as long as there is at least one other triple including the node. More detail later (next week probably). I will try and send the B1 B2 proof to the list tomorrow. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 14:00:33 UTC