Dave Reynold's message - bNodes as object in multiple triples

Concerning blank nodes which represent descriptions and restrictions (i.e. the 
ones in the B.1 B.2) case, Dave has responded

to Jim's 

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?


Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 15:28:40 UTC