- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:36:59 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I wonder whether S&AS CR accurately reflects the issue resolution of OWL DL Syntax, and whether it is in need of a minor correction. My concern is with the following two rules in the abstract syntax, (and their associated mapping rules etc). directive ::= ... | 'Annotation(' annotationPropertyID URIreference ')' and annotation ::= 'annotation(' annotationPropertyID URIreference ')' As far as I can tell the agreed restriciton that "types required on all non-builtin urirefs" is not effective in this case. I note that the issue resolution http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0066 explicitly requires this [[ A.1 types required on all non-builtin urirefs A.3 object of annotation property can be any uriref (see 1) or literal or blank node [xsd datatypes are builtins] ]] The "(see 1)" being the explicit requirement. I have added test AnnotationProperty-003 as a proposed test which currently reflects my understanding of the issue resolution and not my understanding of the OWL CR. (included below) I will modify as require by WG resolution. Jeremy ==== The following is a consistent OWL Full file. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AnnotationProperty/consistent003#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AnnotationProperty/consistent003" > <owl:Class rdf:ID="A"> <first:ap> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="B"/> </first:ap> </owl:Class> <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:ID="ap"/> </rdf:RDF>
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 09:37:07 UTC