- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 05 Mar 2003 09:50:50 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Why isn't FunctionalProperty a subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty? > Date: 05 Mar 2003 09:16:05 -0500 > > [...] > > Hmm. If I can make decisions in OWL based on what might happen to RDF in > the future, I have a lot of other changes that I would like to make. :-) > > > So I don't see any reason why owl:SymmetricProperty should > > be constrained to be a subclass of owl:ObjectProperty. > > Well any owl:SymmetricProperty in OWL DL would, of necessity, have an empty > extension, so would not be very useful. Ah. Hmm.... I see. > In OWL Full, there is no need for the division of properties into > individual-valued and data-valued. In OWL Full, stating that property is an > owl:ObjectProperty doesn't place any restrictions on the property, Really? I guess I need to study this layering stuff more closely. Is your presentation tomorrow likely to elucidate details like this? "3:30 - 15:30 First afternoon session Semantic Layering. presentation by Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Pat Hayes" http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/#L1130 > so there > is no problem here either.. OK. Good. > peter -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 09:51:06 UTC