- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:00:32 -0400
- To: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Cc: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alex Tucker <alex@floop.org.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
That's what I think. Or at least not problems worse than what you have with object properties. But there also needs not to be a way to create large bounded subtypes. (since things true of the class would be true of the subclass) So integers are infinite, but OWL1.1 allows there to be range subtypes. -Alan On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > > 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 16:01:32 UTC