- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:24:31 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Charles: > Note the two instances of /2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty - is that correct? > I don't think so. > I would be surprised if anyones parser would pass this. </rdfs:subPropertyOf> <rdf:type rdf:resource="/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/> </owl:ObjectProperty> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#rxa"/> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#rx"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/> </owl:ObjectProperty> > Can someone in the know check this out? Technically these are fine. The form /2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty is a relative URI which resolves against the base URI of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/consistent605 as http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty I agree these forms are surpising, we could modify http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#style appendix B stylistic preferences, perhaps by adding a sentence to section B.2 on xml:base e.g. [[ Relative URIs used in the tests should not begin with "/" or ".". ]] If we agreed that then the change to description-logic-605 and and other affected tests would be editorial. Anyone else have an opinion. Peter and Ian both spoke recently strongly opposing making some other tests easier. I wonder if they would oppose this change too. It would make this test easier, but perhaps in an area where the WG does not want to include unnecessary difficulties. (I am neutral - HP software deals with this fine, but I don't see it as critical to not simplify this test) Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 06:25:10 UTC