- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:54:17 +0200
- To: geoff@sover.net
- Cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
That's a very good point Geoff, we should not have "una"
(corrected in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules).
Thanks.
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Geoff Chappell"
<geoff@sover.net> To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
Sent by: cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
www-rdf-rules-requ Subject: RE: RDF and OWL rules
est@w3.org
2003-04-01 03:04
PM
Hi Jos,
It looks to me like the rules for neg:item (rule40n2) in [1] make a
unique names assumption. Is this by design?
Should:
?a log:notEqualTo ?x
be changed to:
?a owl:differentFrom ?x
or am I misinterpreting the semantics of log:notEqualTo (i.e. does it do
more than a name comparison)?
Regards,
Geoff
[1] http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 14:54:33 UTC