- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:39:29 +0100
- To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 3 Oct 2007, at 15:28, Matthew Pocock wrote: > I Am Not A Logician... [snip] > This is a direct result of the keys being mapped injectively on to the > instances. Hmm. You claim not to be a logician, but talk about injective mappings.... fishy! [snip] > Is that about right Bijan? Quick check reveals to me that you got why more elaborate key reasoning is hard (i.e., why we don't want to have to work with unnamed individuals or unknown key values and restrictions on key properties). I took Evan to be asking about why we can't have "check" semantics for keys (i.e., missing keys are a violation). In terms of the poster, I was explaining the far left option and you were explaining the far right one. Either way, we done explaint it! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:38:17 UTC