<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Aha, ignore previous email, I found this. It would seem if we had multiple sameAs it would be confusing semantically? Not really sure.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>5. *Improved DEF/USE representation possibilities*</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>/Next question/. Wondering: when we define nodes that have a DEF or USE, should we also define owl:sameAs for the regular naming convention of individuals that indicates graph position in the original scene graph?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For example, current form</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>:ViewUpClose a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Viewpoint ; # current</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:hasParent :Group_2_2 ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:centerOfRotation "0 -1 0" ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:description "Hello world!" ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:position "0 -1 7" .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>would become</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>:Viewpoint_2_2_1 a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Viewpoint ; # proposed</p><p class=MsoNormal> owl:sameAs :ViewUpClose ; # DEF</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:hasParent :Group_2_2 ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:centerOfRotation "0 -1 0" ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:description "Hello world!" ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:position "0 -1 7" .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Similarly considering USE nodes, we might further elaborate these relationships by describing equivalence of numbered-label with USE name and with original DEF node... Current form:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>:MaterialLightBlue a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Material ; # current</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:hasParent :Appearance_2_2_2_1_2 ;</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:diffuseColor "0.1 0.5 1" .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>would become:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>:Material_2_2_3_1_2_1 a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Material ; # proposed</p><p class=MsoNormal> owl:sameAs :MaterialLightBlue ; # USE</p><p class=MsoNormal> owl:sameAs :MaterialLightBlue-USE-1 ; # USE</p><p class=MsoNormal> x3do:hasParent :Appearance_2_2_3_1_2 .</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, if we are going to call them owl:sameAs, they might not be sufficiently distinguished from the original DEF. Perhaps subclassOf is a better relationship?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please consider. I will apply next pattern to all examples for further testing.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>