"Antoine Isaac" <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl> wrote: > 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" Ah, yes, that was a painful mistake in the 1st edition of the Primer (and in the derived chapter in the Ontology Handbook). The new editions of the Primer contain the correct version: "No cardinality restrictions may be placed on transitive properties (or their *super*properties, which are of course also transitive, by implication)." Sorry for the confusion this has caused... Frank. ----Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 13:54:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:32:26 GMT