- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:06:13 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
* Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> [2004-11-29 20:53-0500] > Yes, there were constraints on what you can do with literals from > reasoning in OWL, just as there are constraints that you can't for > example have a datatype property be an inverse functional property > (like social security number is supposed to be). But I don't believe > it is the place of the RDF layer to try to enforce these things. Aside: this constraint (no datatype IFPs) is only in OWL Lite and OWL DL, I believe. OWL Full doesn't care, nor (as you say) does RDF/S. FWIW I describe foaf:mbox_sha1sum as an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty and the sky hasn't yet fallen in. I get complaints from DL-oriented implementors, but afaik the usage is 'legal'. Da
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 02:06:14 UTC