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

Re: Tests illustrating structure sharing

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:00:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3F226D46.2020504@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org


One option would be merely to point to one of the e-mails outlining it, 
maybe Guus's original, may be one with the extra paragraph I proposed.

However, we should leave ourselves some room for manoevre - not simply a 
binary option between two designs - but an area of the design that we are 
not yet comfortable with, and one CR design, and an alternative 
illustrative design of what might change

Jeremy


Jim Hendler wrote:

> Thanks Jeremy -- Peter, I think we also need to put a note in S&AS ch 4 
> (near the table) saying what may change if we end up moving to Jeremy's 
> approach.
>  -JH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:30 AM +0300 7/26/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>> I have added a number of tests to illustrate the constraints on the 
>> use of
>> bnodes corresponding to restrictions and descriptions in both the CR 
>> design
>> and the alternative design.
>>
>> This message assumes that the CR note about the at risk feature would 
>> indicate
>> that "some details of the mapping rules are at risk of change to an 
>> alternate
>> design allowing structure sharing" or words to that effect. (" ... given
>> insufficient positive implementor feedback on the current design ...")
>> The alternative design advocated by some members of the WG (i.e. at 
>> least me!)
>> would result in the following test changes.
>>
>> The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency 
>> tests of
>> OWL Full files, to being OWL Lite and OWL Full (in)consistency tests 
>> of OWL
>> Lite files:
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-002 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-003 
>>
>>
>> The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency 
>> tests of
>> OWL Full files, to being OWL DL and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of 
>> OWL DL
>> files:
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-004 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-006 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-008 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-001 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-002 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-003 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-004 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-005 
>>
>>
>> The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Lite or OWL DL):
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-001 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-004 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#equivalentClass-009 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-003 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-005 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-007 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-009 
>>
>>
>> The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Full):
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-006 
>>
>>
>> Jeremy
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2003 08:00:50 GMT

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