- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:44:32 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 16:33 -0500 3/25/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > >The graph as triples section is not referenced by anything else in the >document, which makes it very different from the proofs. but the part of the proofs that are referenced would still be there -- the solution is not to remove the current proof, just to note that it may be exyended n the future. > >> - I think the easier (but perhaps not most attractive) fix, would be to >> leave Lemma 1 and 2 unchanged except adding that the bnodes are not shared >> between multiple identical transformations, and then relaxing that condition >> in a new lemma (2.1?). This would then justify the merging of bnodes which >> denote the same classes. A more attractive option, requiring more detailed >> work, would be to inspect each use of the disjoint bnodes assumption in the >> proof, and make necessary changes. > >I was planning on doing something along this latter line. Given the other >demands on my time I can't promise to sufficiently attend to this until >mid-April, as I stated in a recent telecom. ahh, but that is a change that could be made after LC if we accepted Jeremy's changes for now -- those wouldn't change the design, just the document (i.e. to use Dan's definition, no test cases would change) - right? -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 16:44:42 UTC