- From: luka frelih <luka@ljudmila.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:03:54 +0200
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
- Cc: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl
hello! i think i've found an error in the document at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ in the paragraph about InverseFunctionalProperty what is now written: For example, hasUSSocialSecurityNumber (a unique identifier for United States residents) may be stated to be inverse functional (or unambiguous). The inverse of this property (which may be referred to as isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor) has at most one value for any individual in the class of social security numbers. Thus any one person's social security number is the only value for their *isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor* property. From this a reasoner can deduce that no two different individual instances of Person have the identical US Social Security Number. Also, a reasoner can deduce that if two instances of Person have the same social security number, then those two instances refer to the same individual. should i guess be: For example, hasUSSocialSecurityNumber (a unique identifier for United States residents) may be stated to be inverse functional (or unambiguous). The inverse of this property (which may be referred to as isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor) has at most one value for any individual in the class of social security numbers. Thus any one person's social security number is the only value for their *hasUSSocialSecurityNumber* property. From this a reasoner can deduce that no two different individual instances of Person have the identical US Social Security Number. Also, a reasoner can deduce that if two instances of Person have the same social security number, then those two instances refer to the same individual. or is this just my flawed reasoner? :) LF
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 00:51:58 UTC