Semantics of antisymmetric properties

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,
Evren

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 21:16:01 UTC