- 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