- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:39:04 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
The syntax of the test is now fixed, the parser now parses it, and FaCT confirms the entailment. Phew! Ian On May 6, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > 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! > > I am finding having a syntax checker really handy - even with the OWL Full > tests where the syntax checker is technically useless, (the file is OWL Full > necessarily), asking it why it is not OWL DL is certainly interesting. > > This particular example was labelled OWL Full - if I had asked why I would > have a surprise. > > I am getting more taken with OWL DL as time goes on. > > Jeremy > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 16:39:12 UTC