The standard definition of antisymmetry is "R(x,y) and R(y,x) implies x=y". In OWL 1.1 semantics document, we have the definition "( x , y ) in RIpo implies ( y , x ) is not in RIpo" which is not the same definition and suggests that antisymmetric properties are irreflexive (because x could be equivalent to y and it is not allowed yb this definition). Is this a bug in the definition? Regards, EvrenReceived on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 21:16:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:41:52 GMT