Proposed reply for O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional?

A while ago Bijan made a comment on ontology type triples.  I believe that
this comment has been addressed by one of yesterday's WG decisions.

I thus propose the following reply:



Thank you for your comment.  As it was received outside of the Last Call
review period it has not received the prompt attention it should have.

On 18 September 2003 the WebOnt Working Group decided (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0216.html) to
make the O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional for anonymous ontologies.
Changes to this effect have been made in the editor's draft of OWL S&AS,
available at http://www.bell-labs.com/usr/pfps/owl/semantics/

Please reply to public-webont-comments@w3.org indicating whether you think
this is a satisfactory response to your commment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Subject: O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional?
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:36:20 -0400

> http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed#OWLDocument,  
> section 2.1 reads:
> 	"An OWL document consists of optional ontology headers (generally at  
> most one).."
> 
> Yet  
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/ 
> mapping.html, section 4.1, the first two lines in the table require an  
> O rdf:type owl:Ontology triple. Shouldn't there be a few [opt]s  
> scattered in there? (I take that 4.1 of S&AS is the normative section  
> and would trump the reference.)
> 
> Tricky reading that table backwards, btw :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.

Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 12:16:55 UTC