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

From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
Date: 11/06/01

• Next message: Richard Fikes: "[Fwd: Re: Query Language Issues]"
• Previous message: [email protected]: "INTAP, Tokyo, set up Semantic Web Task Force"
• In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "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 ]

On November 6, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> 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.

I agree - in fact this is another case where we deliberately chose not
to define daml+oil in a way that (appears to) exploit the semantics of
daml+oil.

Ian

> 
> peter

• Next message: Richard Fikes: "[Fwd: Re: Query Language Issues]"
• Previous message: [email protected]: "INTAP, Tokyo, set up Semantic Web Task Force"
• In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "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