Re: IFP and datatype properties

Sorry if the question seems stupid --

Ulrike Sattler wrote:
> let me explain this dependency a little: IFPs (whether they are present 
> explicitly or via the work-around described by Alan) should be harmless
> 
> - in case where you have individual names (even many of them), say a1, 
> a2, ...., a1000000,... and all of the are related via the datatype 
> property "hasID" to  some integer, and you have declared hasID as 
> inverse functional: now, in case that there are 2 individuals, say a17 
> and a23, that have the same hasID-filler, then a17 and a23 will be 
> identified.

So if we require the concrete domain an inverse functional datatype 
property points to being always of infinite size there is no problem?

denny