- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:59:14 +0300
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Hi Peter
good to see we still disagree on B1 and B2 --- ahh same name, different
referent.
I have a question on
[[
C/ Semantic layering bug
The change to allow optional ontology type triples breaks semantic
layering at bit more. (It was sort of broken in this area, but I think
everything might have worked anyway, due to some fortuitous
circumstances.)
Fix: 1/ Extend OWL abstract consistency and entailment to also allow
axioms and facts outside of ontologies.
2/ Extend OWL satisfaction of an abstract ontology to require that
the ontology be of type owl:Ontology.
3/ Extend the mapping to triples to allow for axioms and facts
outside of an ontology.
4/ Make the typing triple mandatory for unnamed ontologies.
RESOLUTION: Approve the above fix. The only documents that should need
changing are S&AS and Test. I accept an action to make the
changes to S&AS.
NOTE: This effectively replaces the change of 18 September that made
rdf:type triples optional for unnamed ontologies, but gets the
same effect by allowing axioms and facts outside of ontologies.
]]
I wondered whether changing section 5 to require owl:Ontology to be non-empty
might be simpler.
Also I find the above proposal a bit of a pig-in-a-poke, i.e. I don't pretend
to understand it yet, and suspect I would need to see more fully developed
text to decide whether I like it ot not ....
We agree on (E) at least - well I am happy with the suggested tests (I have
already added them) and that will do on that one.
Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 09:59:30 UTC