B.1, B.2 (was RE: Minutes of teleconf 20/3/03)

> 2.1 ISSUE 5.26 OWL DL Syntax
> JimH: mostly approved; some controversy over structure sharing (B.1
> bnodes at descriptions form directed acyclic graphs (DAGs))
> PFPS: didn't seem to be support at last week's teleconf, so not worth
> effort of changing AS&S.
> General discussion re B1/2. Support from DanC and Guus (believes
> editors proposal should be taken as complete set).
> JimH: any strong objections to B1/2?
> PFPS: objects on grounds of resource - at least 1 day's work; someone
> else would have to do it.
> JimH: volunteers?
> Deafening silence.
> DanC: then we should take it out.
> Guus: Jeremy will object.

too right :)
for the record, I object.

> JimH: Agrees with DanC. Suggests taking out B1/2 and close issue with
> proviso that could be re-opened if volunteer appears before last call.

I suggest the following change is all that is necessary.

in S&AS 4.1
Bnode identifiers here must be taken as local to each transformation, i.e.,
different identifiers should be used for each invocation of a transformation


Bnode identifiers here are local to each transformation.
When the construct being transformed matches the *restriction* or
productions from the abstract syntax then
the bnode may be shared between multiple identical transformations of
*restriction*s or *description*s. Otherwise the bnode used in each
should be unique for each invocation of a transformation rule.


In the description of graph as triples the change is also easy:

restriction and description nodes may be the object of more than one triple.
Any directed cycle of bnodes must include an owl:equivalentClass or an
owl:disjointWith triple.


Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 05:28:01 UTC