Re: comment on O

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:37:20 -0400 (EDT)
• To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030916.113720.40574449.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: comment on O
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:57:14 +0200

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-semantics-20030818/mapping.html#4.1
> 
> The second rule seems to *require* that every ontology includes a triple 
> 
> xxx rdf:type owl:Ontology .
> 
> where xxx is either the name of the ontology or a blank node.
> 
> This does not appear to be the intent elsewhere.

Hmm.  Where elsewhere?

> The triple
> O rdf:type owl:Ontology .
> 
> could be included in the Annotation rules instead.

Yes, this would fix a potential problem if the above is optional with
annotations on anonymous ontologies. 

> Jeremy

I am actually in favour of making the type triple optional in this
production.  I think that it would require a working group decision at this
point, however.

peter

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 11:37:32 UTC