Re: comment on O

From: Jeremy Carroll <>
Subject: comment on O
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:57:14 +0200

> 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.


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