On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > On 2 Apr 2012, at 18:54, "Jim McCusker" <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > > 2. Is alternate reflexive or not? With time based definition it seems it >> is. With specialisation based definition it seems it may not be (depends >> whether any entity is always a specialisation of some entity) >> > > I think that it's okay for alternate to be reflexive. The controversy > was whether or not specialization is. > > Reflexivity is not obvious with your definition. Since for alternateOf > (e,e) to hold, e needs to be specialisation of an entity. Is it? > Good point. I'll leave it up to those who wish to have reflexivity for alternateOf to make their case. Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 18:30:22 UTC