Re: Why Literals should be unique and why this is a serious issue

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.


Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 09:33:00 UTC