- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:00:06 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
One option would be merely to point to one of the e-mails outlining it,
maybe Guus's original, may be one with the extra paragraph I proposed.
However, we should leave ourselves some room for manoevre - not simply a
binary option between two designs - but an area of the design that we are
not yet comfortable with, and one CR design, and an alternative
illustrative design of what might change
Jeremy
Jim Hendler wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy -- Peter, I think we also need to put a note in S&AS ch 4
> (near the table) saying what may change if we end up moving to Jeremy's
> approach.
> -JH
>
>
>
>
> At 12:30 AM +0300 7/26/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>> I have added a number of tests to illustrate the constraints on the
>> use of
>> bnodes corresponding to restrictions and descriptions in both the CR
>> design
>> and the alternative design.
>>
>> This message assumes that the CR note about the at risk feature would
>> indicate
>> that "some details of the mapping rules are at risk of change to an
>> alternate
>> design allowing structure sharing" or words to that effect. (" ... given
>> insufficient positive implementor feedback on the current design ...")
>> The alternative design advocated by some members of the WG (i.e. at
>> least me!)
>> would result in the following test changes.
>>
>> The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency
>> tests of
>> OWL Full files, to being OWL Lite and OWL Full (in)consistency tests
>> of OWL
>> Lite files:
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-002
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-003
>>
>>
>> The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency
>> tests of
>> OWL Full files, to being OWL DL and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of
>> OWL DL
>> files:
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-004
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-006
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-008
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-001
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-002
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-003
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-004
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-005
>>
>>
>> The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Lite or OWL DL):
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-001
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-004
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#equivalentClass-009
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-003
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-005
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-007
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-009
>>
>>
>> The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Full):
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-006
>>
>>
>> Jeremy
>
>
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2003 08:00:50 UTC