- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:38:29 +0300
- To: "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Crowther [mailto:peter.crowther@networkinference.com] > > From: Vassilis Christophides [mailto:christop@ics.forth.gr] > > Also for properties a cycle would mean that we have different names > > for properties expressing the same. But for properties cycles even > > make less sense. > > Not at all. How else do you express the equivalence of two > properties? By another property (that shows the equivalence relationship) used it in the property definition ;-) > Also, what do you do where the range of one is a superclass > of the range of > the other, or where the ranges intersect? I see no > particular reason to > disallow these cases. Neither do I. > There was a long discussion a few months ago about alternative ways to > define equivalence, and IIRC the conclusion was that cycles > were (a) the > cleanest of the options and (b) the only option that will work on the > Semantic Web, where arbitrary fragments of RDF may be merged > into a larger > graph. Well... Nothing is absolute. One may have different requirements about the graph than someone else. For example, one may want to actually merge all equivalents and I am sure that using another property to declare equivalence is a lot faster to do that. I think that cycles (as mentioned in this thread) will be used as special constructs. For example, one may show a series of properties that have different levels of similarity or a set of recourses that form an integral set (properties, classes, whatever you may call them) that cannot be so easily and well defined using the traditional class/subclass relationships. Kindest regards, Manos
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 08:36:56 UTC