- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:57:09 -0500
- To: Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
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 UTC