- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:15:31 +0200
- To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
[Resent for archival purposes, as Dan's original message was for some reason noy stored in the WG mail archive] -------- Original Message -------- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Date: 28 May 2002 18:09:23 -0500 Subject: 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies Resent-From: www-webont-wg@w3.org To: www-webont-wg@w3.org I think inverseOf is quite useful for mapping between ontologies; here's an example of how I understand it to work: premise: :joe my:hasBrother :bob. my:hasBrother ont:inverseOf your:isBrotherOf. conclusion: :bob your:isBrotherOf :joe. full details, with namespaces and all that: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapInvP.rdf http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapInvC.rdf (for the cwm/N3-minded, see the mapInvR.n3 stanza the http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Makefile for one way to run this test.) So I propose to close this issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#4.5-InverseOf by approving this test case and the existing specification of inverseOf: "if the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is an instance of the named property." http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-reference-20011218#inverseOf-def er... perhaps this should be clarified: if (I(P),I(Q)) is in the extension of ont:inverseOf and if (x,y) is in the extension of P then (y, x) is in the extension of Q. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 09:19:35 UTC