- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 02 Aug 2002 17:17:34 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 07:23, Jonathan Borden wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > Sorry, that example didn't make the point... > > To clarify, we want to be able to make the sorts of conclusions: > > email:cust24 owl:sameIndividualAs phone:cust34. > > given, > FunctionalProperty(fred:customer) > and > fred:order24 fred:customer email:cust24. > fred:order24 fred:customer phone:cust34 . We want that, but that's not the point I'm making. The point I making is that I (we?) also want to conclude FunctionalProperty(fred:customer) from my:KeyProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:FunctionalProperty. db:key rdfs:range db:KeyProperty. fred:Order db:key fred:customer. > wouldn't something like this be the case under _any_ implementation of > FunctionalProperty? > > (I am assuming that owl:sameIndividualAs is our term for '=') -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 18:17:03 UTC