W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: proposals for the underlying principles of OWL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 01:24:01 -0500
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1030602241.13314.289.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 16:37, Christopher Welty wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> You've lost me - I don't understand why you think dropping "equivalentTo" 
> will prevent you from specifying unique mappings from "property" values to 
> individuals, ie. a 1:1 mapping from a state code to a state. 

It's not so much dropping equivalentTo, but the "strict separation
between OWL object and data values," which results in equivalentTo
being "ill typed".

> If, in your example, statecode is a "owl:property" that is both functional 
> and inversefunctional, you will get this mapping.  Is that not what you 
> want?

Yes, InverseFunctional is what I want. But InverseFunctional
properties can't be DatatypeProperties in the
"strict separation" design; note that InverseFunctional
only goes with ObjectProperties in

  5.1.3. OWL Lite Property Axioms 
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#5.1.3


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 02:23:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT