- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:02:06 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
I am looking for a way to state that a relation is an equivalence 
relation [1]. I want to know this so that I can starting from a graph 
such as
_blank ---relation---> <http://bblfish.net/>
   |------owner-------> "Henry Story"
deduce the graph
<http://bblfish.net> ----owner----> "Henry Story"
My thought was that a relation that is functional, symmetric and 
transitive
  is just such a relation. Here is how I come to this conclusion.
1) Functional and symmetric
  If a relation is functional and symmetric, then it is also
  inverse functional. It is a 1 to 1 mapping.
2) If it is functional, inverse functional and symmetric
    then for all aRb we also have bRa
    this still allows a and b to be different
3) if it is transitive then for any a, b and c, where
    [1] aRb
    [2] bRc
    then
    [3] aRc
    but since R is symmetric
    from [2] bRc we deduce that
    [4] cRb
     and since R is inverse functional
    from  [1] aRb and [4] cRb we deduce that a==c
    similarly from [3] aRb, [1] aRc and the functional nature of R
    we deduce that c == b.
    So a == c and c == b and so a == b.
Is this reasoning ok?
I was hoping it would be, cause then I can just specify in OWL that 
properties
are functional, symmetric and transitive if I want them to be 
equivalence relations (or is there a shorthand for this)
Henry Story
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 08:02:33 UTC