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: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:00:32 -0400
Message-Id: <A8691A12-D6DE-4D08-9118-05BB05AE7668@gmail.com>
Cc: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

That's what I think. Or at least not problems worse than what you  
have with object properties. But there also needs not to be a way to  
create large bounded subtypes. (since things true of the class would  
be true of the subclass)
So integers are infinite, but OWL1.1 allows there to be range subtypes.

-Alan

On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:

>
> 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
>
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2007 16:01:32 GMT

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