From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 11/05/01
Michel Klein, a colleague of mine at the VU, has spotted some more bugs/buglets in our spec. It seems to me that [a] he is right, and [b] they should not be hard to fix. Peter can we still catch this before submitting to W3C? Frank. ---- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:34:44 +0100 From: Michel Klein <Michel.Klein@cs.vu.nl> Organization: Vrije Universiteit - computer science To: Frank van Harmelen <frankh@cs.vu.nl> Looking at the DAML+OIL specification, I just found that there is a small syntactic mistake in the definition of the properties "equivalentTo" and "sameClassAs". Both use the unqualified <comment> property where obviously <rdfs:comment> is meant. To continue, I think that there is also something strange with use of the namespace qualifier in property definitions. A few properties in DAML+OIL (equivalentTo, sameClassAs, samePropertyAs, sameIndividualAs, differentIndividualForm) are defined as instances of the unqualified <Property>, i.e., as instance of http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#Property. However, Property is not defined in DAML+OIL. From the RDFS point of view, this means that the "properties" are not properties, but just resources of an unknown but named type. To my understanding, either daml:Property should be defined (in the same way as daml:Class), or the mentioned properties should be instances of rdf:Property.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST