- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:50:20 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org

When one defines a property P to be a transitive property, this means that if a pair (x,y) is an instance of P, and the pair (y,z) is also instance of P, then we can infer the the pair (x,z) is also an instance of P.Happy to take on board the suggestion and see what the consensus is. its important to be clear of the semantics here :-) def of transitive : "(of a relation) such that, if it applies between successive members of a sequence, it must also apply between any two members taken in order. For instance, if A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, then A is larger than C." or in the OWL spec; "When one defines a property P to be a transitive property, this means that if a pair (x,y) is an instance of P, and the pair (y,z) is also instance of P, then we can infer the the pair (x,z) is also an instance of P." a object conforming to profile A is also conformant to all profiles P where A transitiveProfileOf P so for the case: "profileC is a profile of A and B although it uses only portions of A and B " profileC is still bound by any cardinality constraints in either A or B NB a vocabulary where terms are defined and no cardinality is defined (everything is optional) means that any object may "conform" to it if the use of those properties are consistent. We may need to think about the case where no properties are used at all is the graph "A1 a owl:Thing . " conformant to a profile of dublin core that introduces no cardinality constraints? would we need to safeguard reasoners against lots of trivial conformance statements? -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-432521577 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2018 05:56:03 UTC