Re: B.1, B.2

 >> 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.

I have just been looking at it - it looks challenging.

[Rest of message rambles ...]

The proof often combine bnodes mappings A1, A2, .. An into a single bnode
mapping relying on the disjointness of the bnodes.

In the non-disjoint case these could be combined with a rule

A*(n) = Ai(n) for the first Ai with n in its domain

we intuit that since CEXT(Ai(n)) = CEXT(Aj(n)) in the interesting cases,
and the semantics of descriptions really only depends on their class
extension, that everything will be OK - but ...
the lists look hairy for example. The individual list nodes join specific
domain elements so this naive A* will not work.


Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:51:44 UTC