W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Silly question on IFPs.

From: Manuel Vzquez Acosta <manu@chasqui.cu>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:27:59 -0400
To: "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1Bugzh-00006V-N6@frink.w3.org>

Thanks every body.

I have not read OWL specs yet - sure you realized that though, :)
So IFP is the OWL term for DAML+OIL's UnambigousProperty. Now I can figure
out why I've seen that many posts on IFPs.

Thanks again.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:05 PM
To: Simon Price
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: Silly question on IFPs.

* Simon Price <simon.price@bristol.ac.uk> [2004-08-10 21:58+0100]
> Whoops! I originally only sent this reply to Manuel by mistake so here's 
> a less concise definition...
> ----
> IFP stands for inverse-functional property. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
> It means that a property is "owned" by only one thing. There are more
> mathematical ways of saying it too of course.
> Email addresses in FOAF are considered to be IFP: each person can have
> multiple email addresses (not functional) but each email address can
> have only one owner (functional) - in FOAF it is required that email
> addresses are only used by one person which is not always true in
> reality of course.

Cheers. There's also a longer version of the FOAF-related 
explanation at 

I should mention that *some* but not *all* mailboxes are "personal
mailboxes" in the foaf:mbox sense...

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2004 00:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC