- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:48:51 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Proposed response to Michael Grove (Note the current editors draft of imports-011 still has a known bug, it will be updated before the response is sent to Michael). << 1) The test file http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises001 is in OWL Full because the URIref node http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises001 is the subject of a triple (the owl:imports triple), but has not been given a type. To further clarify this we have added a new test imports-011 which is similar to imports-001 but with the missing triple. Hence http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises011 is in Lite not Full. (See the editors draft: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#imports-011 ) 2) http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent102 The file is in OWL DL not OWL Lite. An analysis of sections 2 and 4 of S&AS shows that in OWL Lite there are no blank nodes with explicit type owl:Class, except those which also have explicit type owl:Restriction This is echoed in OWL Reference: Sec. 8.3 of Reference also contains the following constraint on OWL Lite (see just below the intersectionOf bullet): [[ * the object of rdf:type triples be named classes or restrictions; ]] To further clarify we will add the following statement concerning OWL Lite to sec 8.3 of reference. [[ Blank nodes representing classes should be of type owl:Restriction. ]] Thanks very much for this feedback, please send more. Please respond, copying public-webont-comments@w3.org, indicating if you withdraw the comment that tests http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest001 and http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/Manifest102 are incorrect. Please also indicate whether you are satisfied that the changes we are making adequately address your difficulties. yours Jeremy Carroll >>
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 08:48:55 UTC