Re: problem with B1 B2

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
• To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030905.082044.46625281.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: problem with B1 B2
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 14:32:00 +0100

> 
> 
> The goal of this message is to show that the B1 B2 approach is not 
> invalidated by our current difficult example:

Again I spoke too soon.  My belief about the example was not well-founded.
My comprehension of how the OWL comprehension principles work has degraded.
:-) 

[Jeremy's demonstration needs a fix or two, but appears to work. ...]

> I believe that the technique used in the above demonstration can be 
> generalized and embedded within the inductive structure of the previous 
> flawed proof. However, this is non-trivial.

Definitely non-trivial.

> Jeremy

peter

Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 08:22:14 UTC