- From: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:22:04 +0100
- To: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
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 15:22:48 UTC