Re: description-logic/consistency605

On September 13, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> 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)

I have always argued for making the *syntax* as simple as possible, so
I don't have a serious problem with the proposed change. However, if
the current tests remain legal syntax (even if they don't conform to
the preferred style), then I believe that we should keep at least one
example in the test suite.

Ian

> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 07:27:49 UTC