[closed] Re: Owl abstract syntax, equivalent classes

[This time sent to the correct recipients.]


In my previous message I forgot to either mark this thread as closed or ask
you whether you needed any more information.

So, I'll do both in this message.  :-)

If you need any more information on this issue, please reply.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies


From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: Owl abstract syntax, equivalent classes
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:55:29 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
> Subject: Owl abstract syntax, equivalent classes
> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 17:07:03 +0100
> 
> > With reference to:
> >    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.3.2.1
> > 
> > I see:
> > [[
> > axiom ::= 'DisjointClasses(' description description { description } ')'
> >          | 'EquivalentClasses(' description { description } ')'
> >          | 'SubClassOf(' description description ')'
> > ]]
> > 
> > which appears to admit "EquivalentClasses( description )" as a valid axiom.
> > 
> > Is this correct?  If so, what does it mean?  I'm guessing there's a missing 
> > "description" in the EquivalentClasses production.  (Assuming this is so, I 
> > see no cause to raise a formal comment.)
> 
> This is correct.  Allowing EquivalentClasses( description ) means that
> blank node descriptions with no connections to other descriptions are
> allowed, as per a request from Jeremy Carroll.  Such unconnected
> blank node descriptions have no semantic import.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 10:43:04 UTC