- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> Subject: Dave Reynold's message - bNodes as object in multiple triples Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:28:12 +0300 > 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 The current design is known (more-or-less) to work. I'm not (yet) convinced that the revision would work, although I don't see any reason that it doesn't. peter
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:30:46 UTC