Re: B.1, B.2

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?

Professor James Hendler
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)

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 16:44:42 UTC