- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I don't particularly care one way of the other here, but I don't see any
need to forbid loops (of any sort). As well, the wording that you propose
could be read as forbidding non-trivial loops.
peter
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: loop free?
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:19:57 +0200
> 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 16:19:04 UTC