- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:28:12 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 15:28:40 UTC