Re: B.1, B.2

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: B.1, B.2 (was RE: Minutes of teleconf 20/3/03)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:27:59 +0100

> 
> > 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
> rule.
> ]]
> 
> ==>
> 
> [[
> Bnode identifiers here are local to each transformation.
> When the construct being transformed matches the *restriction* or
> *description*
> productions from the abstract syntax then
> the bnode may be shared between multiple identical transformations of
> identical
> *restriction*s or *description*s. Otherwise the bnode used in each
> transformation
> 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.
> 
> Jeremy

This does not include changes to the equivalence proof.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 06:28:32 UTC