Re: [OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 12/09/04

  • Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: [All] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft"
    Not according to the instructions in the document, not that I exactly
    followed them! 
    	This document is the First Public Working Draft. We encourage
    	public comments. Please send comments to
    	[archive] and start the subject line of the message with "comment:" 
    From: "Uschold, Michael F" <>
    Subject: [OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft
    Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:37:08 -0800
    > Please remember to place [OEP] in the message header when discussing OEP
    > issues
    > Thanks
    > Mike
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [] 
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:44 AM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > Subject: comment on N-ary relations draft
    > I just read the N-ary relations draft and I am somewhat confused as to
    > why
    > it has the two representation patterns.  I don't see that the two
    > patterns
    > are different in any substantial way as the only difference between them
    > is
    > the direction of one arrow.  This difference may matter in some
    > formalisms
    > but doesn't in RDF/RDFS (as they are too weak to notice much difference)
    > or
    > OWL (as it has the inverse construct).
    > So, my question is why maintain the two different representation
    > patterns?
    > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
    > Bell Labs Research

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 12/09/04 EST