- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:19:57 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Concerning
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-semantics-20030818/
Peter,
an editorial suggestion on the mapping rules:
[[
T(descriptioni) owl:equivalentClass T(descriptionj) .
for all <i,j> in G where G is a set of pairs over {1,...,n}x{1,...,n}
that if interpreted as an undirected graph forms a connected graph for
{1,...,n}
]]
suggest
s/a connected graph/a loop-free connected graph/
I think the case <i, i> in G is already excluded by the word "pairs" but it
is arguable. For most readers undirected graphs are loop free by definition;
but since we do not provide one ...
(I should add a test case for
_:b owl:equivalentClass _:b .
_:b rdf:type owl:Class .
_:b owl:unionOf rdf:nil .
as being in OWL Full, similarly
_:b owl:disjointWith _:b .
_:b rdf:type owl:Class .
_:b owl:unionOf rdf:nil .
)
My code, which now passes all the tests except I5.8-016, would fail those
two I think :(
Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:28:08 UTC