- From: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:11:01 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Couldn't the combination of datatype IFPs and bounded subtypes be restricted? Or, to put it differently, allow datatype IFPs only to infinite concrete domains. This would certainly be enough to allow for datatype IFPs to be used like they are in FOAF, for example. denny Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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 16:11:41 UTC