- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:11:25 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jeremy: > 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. As it is right now, it works for me (thanks to HP Jena and W3C Cwm). -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 08:11:47 UTC