W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > March 2008

RE : RE : Suggestion for SKOS FAQ

From: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:17:40 +0100
Message-ID: <68C22185DB90CA41A5ACBD8E834C5ECD04953D80@goofy.wpakb.kb.nl>
To: "Simon Spero" <ses@unc.edu>, "Sini, Margherita \(KCEW\)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>, <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT