- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 20:57:45 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On May 6, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > Oops - yes of course. Just shows how dangerous it is to rely on manual translation! Fortunately, this was the only test where I had to do so. Ian p.s. I believe that this is yet another example illustrating how crazy it is to try to write OWL in RDF syntax without tool support - even we (the "experts") can't get it right! > Yes you're right, I'll fix it this afternoon. It is currently shown as OWL > Full which is correct as you point out; but I supsect the entailment is > incorrect as is. I will change it to be an OWL DL test. > > > (Jos, I have now fixed the problems you reported in extra-credit 002 - 004, > althought extra-credit 001 is still broken). > > Jeremy > > > This is a bit of a funny one. As I understand it, this particular file > > *isn't* OWL Lite, so my parser is correct to reject it. The problem is > > that owl:Thing appears (I think) in the "wrong" place. The RDF looks like: > > > > <owl:Thing> > > <rdfs:subClassOf> > > <owl:Restriction> > > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="conclusions004#prop"/> > > <owl:allValuesFrom> > > <owl:Class rdf:about="conclusions004#A"/> > > </owl:allValuesFrom> > > </owl:Restriction> > > </rdfs:subClassOf> > > </owl:Thing> > > > > What this then gives you in terms of the RDF graph is a bnode which has > > rdf:type owl:Thing and which is an rdfs:subClassOf the given restriction. > > This is then Full as it's an example of class as instance (of Thing). > > What I think you *really* want is: > > > > <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"> > > <rdfs:subClassOf> > > <owl:Restriction> > > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="conclusions004#prop"/> > > <owl:allValuesFrom> > > <owl:Class rdf:about="conclusions004#A"/> > > </owl:allValuesFrom> > > </owl:Restriction> > > </rdfs:subClassOf> > > </owl:Class> > > > > RDFers, please shout if I've got this wrong -- this is one that I've > > struggled with (and got wrong) in the past.... > > > > Sean > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 15:57:56 UTC