- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Aug 2002 01:24:01 -0500
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 16:37, Christopher Welty wrote: > Dan, > > You've lost me - I don't understand why you think dropping "equivalentTo" > will prevent you from specifying unique mappings from "property" values to > individuals, ie. a 1:1 mapping from a state code to a state. It's not so much dropping equivalentTo, but the "strict separation between OWL object and data values," which results in equivalentTo being "ill typed". > If, in your example, statecode is a "owl:property" that is both functional > and inversefunctional, you will get this mapping. Is that not what you > want? Yes, InverseFunctional is what I want. But InverseFunctional properties can't be DatatypeProperties in the "strict separation" design; note that InverseFunctional only goes with ObjectProperties in 5.1.3. OWL Lite Property Axioms http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#5.1.3 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 02:23:53 UTC