Hi Simon (cc Frank) Thank you for the link. >>This construction may be legal. Antoniou and Harmelen (2003) claim in passing that transitivity in owl properties is inherited - "No transitive cardinality restrictions: no cardinality restrictions may be placed on transitive properties (or their subproperties, which are of course also transitive, by implication" However, the OWL semantics do not appear to require this, and no inferences about the particular class of a property seem to be directly licensed. >> I don't know if Frank was already aware of this part of his text. But it's no wonder that OWL semantics say nothing about this 'rule', because it is wrong. Best, Antoine >> Simon *Antinou, G. and Frank van Harmelen (2003) "Web Ontology Language: OWL" in Handbook on Ontologies. Springer Verlag. Available at http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/OntoHandbook03OWL.pdf* * * On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Sini, Margherita (KCEW) < Margherita.Sini@fao.org> wrote: > I agree with Andy, I also think it should be a sub-property, not a > super-property... > > Regards > Margherita >
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:18:06 UTC