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

Not according to the instructions in the document, not that I exactly
followed them! 

	This document is the First Public Working Draft. We encourage
	public comments. Please send comments to public-swbp-wg@w3.org
	[archive] and start the subject line of the message with "comment:" 

peter


From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Subject: [OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:37:08 -0800

> 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 21:13:30 UTC