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 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:33 GMT