- From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:57:11 +0200
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
Aldo Gangemi wrote: > Awesome indeed, but the two solutions are not equivalent, because > owl:propertyChainAxiom is a regular implication (a sufficient condition > to conclude barter:wants, but not its inverse), while your N3 looks like > you want an equivalence axiom (both the sufficient condition and its > inverse). > Aldo Yes, basically you can define shortcuts and then you can have longer versions with more info and you can infer the shorter versions from that. But how would you infer more information from less? The variables ?off and ?obj in that rule would be undefined when inferring that way. Regards, Simon
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 00:57:55 UTC