Re: your request to reopen 5.26 (was Re: Minutes of the beer session)

>>     to accept the changes B.1 B.2
> If we were to do the above would you remove your 
> objection to 5.26?


>> I haven't seen any evidence that anyone other than you
>>believes in your solution and has asked to reopen the issue --

>Jim - silence may indicate some kind of agreement;

There have been plenty of telecons between 4th June and now.
Many opportunities for the chairs to ask the WG formally or informally what 
they thought should be done.
The chairs have not been so minded. The chairs agree to the action to look for 
the proof, with the clear understanding that if a proof were found the issue 
would be reopened. I feel that you are forever moving the goal posts.

The only comment on the proof was one from Peter pointing out one mistake and 
asking for more detail in a number of places. The mistake was fixed, the 
detail provided.

The last time we had a straw poll on the B1 B2 issue there were several in 
favour of my position and one opposed.

STRAW POLL: adopting structure sharing seems to cause a risk that a
        proof be hard to find, not adopting structure sharing seems to
        have conformance risks
(poll yielded several for adopting structure sharing, one against)

Since you ask for text, you will find some in
We add to the preamble to the mapping rules words like:
[bnode reuse]
"When processing an abstract syntax construct corresponding
to either the description, restriction or dataRange construct
then, if that exact instance of the construct has already
occurred then there is at least one blank
node already corresponding to the construct. In such a case,
the mapping may nondeterministically use any previous result
(a blank node) or may apply the mapping rues to the new occurrence."

I would prefer to leave the exact words as editors' discretion.

The proposal is to add that paragraph, or words to that effect.
I would not presume to propose how best to modify the presentation of the 
proofs in S&AS, but have provided the basis.
I suspect there would be changes in needed in reference, but I am not 
sufficiently on top of that document to suggest exactly what - should be 
simpler than whatever it currently says - depending on how accurately it 
captures the constraints on owl:equivalentClas and owl:disjointWith

Moving to CR without making this decision would put some obligation on the 
test editors to come up with some nasty owl:disjointWith examples to  exhibit  
this 'feature' of not allowing arbitrary DAGs.


Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 15:17:12 UTC