Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/06/01

Next message: Ian Horrocks: "Re: Class warfare: rdfs: vs. daml:"
Previous message: Richard Fikes: "Query Language Issues"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Next in thread: Ian Horrocks: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Reply: Ian Horrocks: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Here are some more thoughts on where
	equivalentTo
	sameClassAs
	samePropertyAs
	sameIndividualAs
	differentIndividualForm
belong.

Currently I have them in rdf:Property.

Can any of them be usefully be put into daml:ObjectProperty?

What you could get is letting them have inverses, or be transitive, or be
unambiguous.  However, I don't think that we really want to do this for
*these* properties, so I don't see any advantage to making them be
daml:ObjectProperty.

peter

Next message: Ian Horrocks: "Re: Class warfare: rdfs: vs. daml:"
Previous message: Richard Fikes: "Query Language Issues"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Next in thread: Ian Horrocks: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Reply: Ian Horrocks: "Re: [Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST