W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: IFP and datatype properties

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:57:09 -0500
Message-Id: <0FB76E8B-19FE-4402-AD84-84D929363895@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>

If I understand the issue, Uli or Ian please correct me, the issue is  
that datatypes in general don't have the same property of classes  
that you can invent a new one at will from an infinite set- some  
datatypes are (large) finite sets and this (at least) complicates  
things from the point of view of checking consistency and  
satisfiability.

I don't believe there is an issue for inverse functional object  
properties.

-Alan

On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Alex Tucker wrote:

> Alan,
>> What i have done, for non-compound keys, is create a uri with the
>> value embedded as a string, use and object property and make that
>> inverse functional.
> We've been following a similar pattern, essentially preferring
> ObjectProperties over DatatypeProperties for the most part.  However,
> Ian's assertion that the "tractability of reasoning ... depends on the
> fact that they are typically *not* used in this way," worries me a
> little, if, as users, we've all been expecting IFPs to cope.
>
> Alex.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 16:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT