Let's have a counter-example. I know two people named David Green. Almost no literal-valued property can really be termed inverse-functional: even genetic code sequences can be shared (between twins, for example). Certainly, terming names ("Tiger Woods") as IFPs (your more "fundamental problem") doesn't work. > So, in a relational Database this problem would have never arrised. > So why canīt be do the same in Ontologies ? Well, as has been pointed out, we can -- IFPs. We don't do so very often because our assertions have global scope, and I *know* that the two David Greens are separate individuals. Relational databases rarely choose to deal with the possibilities of integrating data from a dozen sources. -RReceived on Saturday, 19 November 2005 09:33:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:57 UTC