W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Dave Reynold's message - bNodes as object in multiple triples

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030724.123036.65455341.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Dave Reynold's message - bNodes as object in multiple triples
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:28:12 +0300

> Concerning blank nodes which represent descriptions and restrictions (i.e. the 
> ones in the B.1 B.2) case, Dave has responded
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jul/0050
> 
> to Jim's 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jul/0044
> 
> by asking
> **
> If this proof is indeed in error an analysis demonstrating the error could 
> supply the test case that we requested.
>    [[
>    A rationale for not permitting this in OWL DL
>    should be given, preferably as a test case in OWL Full
>    showing an OWL Full non-entailment that would hold in
>    OWL DL if such triples were permitted.
>    ]]
> **
> 
> can anyone provide such a counterexample?
> Peter, as the only one on record with doubts, can you provide a rationale for 
> the current design?
> 
> Jeremy

The current design is known (more-or-less) to work.  

I'm not (yet) convinced that the revision would work, although I don't see
any reason that it doesn't.

peter
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:30:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT