W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2005

Re: exactMatch mapping property

From: Dragan Gasevic <dgasevic@sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:31:46 -0700
Message-ID: <00d101c55668$79d90360$843857d1@MAREK00001115>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Thanks Charles!

I have one more doubt - If I the concept A that has exactMatch with the
union of the classes B, C, and D. I wonder how I can define the oposit
relation, let say, between B and A (or C and A, or D and A). Maybe, I can
say they have majorMatch, or I have to define a mapping relation for each
pair?

Thank you,

Dragan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
To: "Dragan Gasevic" <dgasevic@sfu.ca>; <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: exactMatch mapping property


> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:41:40 +0200, Dragan Gasevic <dgasevic@sfu.ca>
wrote:
>
> > I wonder if exactMatch property from the SKOS RDF mapping vocabulary can
> > be defined as a symmetric property in terms of OWL? I
> > suppose that the same rule can not be applied to majorMatch and
> > minorMatch properties.
>
> This makes sense to me...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
> charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 20:32:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT