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

loop free?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:19:57 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKEBPCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Concerning
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-semantics-20030818/


Peter,

an editorial suggestion on the mapping rules:

[[
T(descriptioni) owl:equivalentClass T(descriptionj) .
for all <i,j> in G where G is a set of pairs over {1,...,n}x{1,...,n}
that if interpreted as an undirected graph forms a connected graph for
{1,...,n}
]]

suggest

s/a connected graph/a loop-free connected graph/

I think the case <i, i> in G is already excluded by the word "pairs" but it
is arguable. For most readers undirected graphs are loop free by definition;
but since we do not provide one ...





(I should add a test case for

_:b owl:equivalentClass _:b .
_:b rdf:type owl:Class .
_:b owl:unionOf rdf:nil .

as being in OWL Full, similarly

_:b owl:disjointWith _:b .
_:b rdf:type owl:Class .
_:b owl:unionOf rdf:nil .
)

My code, which now passes all the tests except I5.8-016, would fail those
two I think :(

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT