- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:05:58 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > I gathered that
> >
> > owl:allDifferent rdfs:subPropertyOf owl:oneOf .
>
> I don't see where this would come from.
that would be the case in a proposed proposal to resolve issue 5.18
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.18-Unique-Names-Assumption-Support-in-OWL
which I mentioned in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0026.html
> > owl:backCompatWith rdfs:subPropertyOf owl:priorVersion .
>
> I don't think that this is necessarily the case.
hm... got that from Jeff's
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0001.html
i.e.
<rdf:Property rdf:ID="backCompatWith">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Ontology" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Ontology" />
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#priorVersion" />
</rdf:Property>
> > owl:imports rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:seeAlso .
>
> This is not the way I would think of this.
for the moment I have no comment on that...
> > owl:sameClassAs rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf .
> > owl:samePropertyAs rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf .
>
> These appear to be truths to me, but they are only derivable in Full OWL.
I can't see how to derive them and stated them as
facts in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
> > owl:versionInfo rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:comment .
>
> I can't image why anyone would want this.
do you mean http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#versionInfo-def
or that it would be a rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:comment
???
> > and wonder if that's OK and wether there are other cases?
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 8 December 2002 19:06:35 UTC