From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 12/09/04
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 public-swbp-wg@w3.org [archive] and start the subject line of the message with "comment:" peter From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com> 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 [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:44 AM > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Cc: joint-committee@daml.org > 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