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.


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC