- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:12:23 -0700
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-04-29 10:40, "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com" ><jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > >> >> [...] >> >>> There is an alternate way to fix this by rule without introducing >>> any variant properties. >> >> no, please see argument >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0151.html >> and correct with eg:age rdfd:datatype xsd:number . > >The problem with owl:UniqueProperty exists regardless of the >proposed closure rule. > >If you have both > > Jenny ex:age "10" . > >and > > Jenny ex:age _:x . > _:x xsd:integer "10" . > >in the same graph, you will still get the conflict with > > ex:age a owl:UniqueProperty . > >since "10" will denote the literal and _:x will denote >the datatype value. Correct. Actually, the strict RDF+OWL conclusion here would be that 10="10", which presumably would be ruled out by the datatyping constraints. >This is a fundamental incompatability with the coexistence >of the inline and bnode based idioms and owl:UniqueProperty, Well, lets not overstate the case. Obviously it is inconsistent to say both that a property is a UniqueProperty, and also that it has several distinct values for a given subject. However, I don't see that as being a 'fundamental incompatibility' or evidence of any kind of 'problem' (except maybe in the mind of whoever made those assertions.) Pat >and may even be construed as evidence of a problem with >literals always denoting themselves... > >Patrick > >-- > >Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 >Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 >Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 13:03:25 UTC