Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > It's OWL, but not OWL-DL. > I would very much like there to be an OWL-DL version too, or at > least to factor it into two components - an OWL-DL portion, and a > set of further axioms that are imported by OWL full users. Why don't you hack your OWL DL reasoner so it just ignores the fact that something is an InverseFunctionProperty when it is also a DatatypeProperty? Just because the reasoner can't handle it, there is no reason to remove this valuable (essential) information from the ontology. TimReceived on Sunday, 15 June 2008 19:10:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:07 UTC