RE: Proposed response to: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Editorial Comments

> You're right. It is stated correctly in Sec. 8,3 but we forgot to update 
> the text  in this section. The last sentence of the note now reads:
> [[
> In OWL Lite the subject must be a class named and the object mist be 
> either a class name or a property restriction.
> ]]


I think it is correct in the new draft


Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 08:48:50 UTC