W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2004

[OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:37:08 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05C7832C@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <joint-committee@daml.org>

Please remember to place [OEP] in the message header when discussing OEP
issues

Thanks
Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:44 AM
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Cc: joint-committee@daml.org
Subject: comment on N-ary relations draft


I just read the N-ary relations draft and I am somewhat confused as to
why
it has the two representation patterns.  I don't see that the two
patterns
are different in any substantial way as the only difference between them
is
the direction of one arrow.  This difference may matter in some
formalisms
but doesn't in RDF/RDFS (as they are too weak to notice much difference)
or
OWL (as it has the inverse construct).

So, my question is why maintain the two different representation
patterns?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 18:37:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:03 UTC