- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:36:26 +0200
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Anyone know why these are being sent to the RDFa list as well? Steven On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:34:25 +0200, SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> wrote: > ISSUE-134: Last Call Comment: owl:inverseOf > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/134 > > Raised by: Alistair Miles > On product: SKOS > > Raised by Michael Schneider in [1]: > > """ > Don't say "is /the/ owl:inverseOf ...". In OWL Full, a property p may > have two > inverses q1 and q2 with q1 owl:differentFrom q2. For q1 and q2, in order > to be > both inverse of p, it suffices that q1 owl:equivalentProperty q2 holds, > i.e. > that q1 and q2 only have the same property extension, they don't have to > be the > same resource. Better say "is owl:inverseOf". Same for S25, S26, S43. > Please > check yourself whether I have missed some occurrence. > """ > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:37:05 UTC