W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Combined Inverse Functional Properties

From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:18:53 +0800
Message-ID: <003c01c5149f$68ad9890$fd0b77ca@xobjects>
To: "Rogier Brussee" <rogier.brussee@gmail.com>
Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
> > It seems to me that:
> > 
> > what CIFP means is very close to that intersectionOf(r1, r2, ..., rn) is a reverse functional property.
> > 
> [snip]
> Except that it is not so clear what the domain (i.e. "outcome")  of :cifp is. 

> It seems to me that the "combined inversefunctional property" is not a
> primitive notion. It seems more natural and general to have a notion
> of productProperty (or combined property) which can in particular  be
> inverse functional. Thus I would replace  the last sentence by :
> :p :productProperty (:r1:r2).
> :p a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
> :productProperty should model a list of simulaneous properties, and it
> seems easiest if it takes values in a list. To be of any use as an
> inverse functional property we have to assume that two lists are
> owl:sameAs if their entries are owl:sameAs and have the same order,
> just as Yuzhong Qu seems to suggest.
However, intersectionOf(r1, r2, ..., rn) is a relation on the domain, while productPropertyOf(r1, r2, ..., rn) is a relation on the product of (Domain, ..., Domain) [Note that it leads to the ordered list issue]. 

And some DLs do support the role constructor "intersectionOf". 


Of couese, your scheme is also sound, at least seems to me.

Yuzhong Qu

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 03:18:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:00 UTC