Dear all,
A good question has been asked on Twitter:
> http://twitter.com/wikier/statuses/12566319573
>
> why not dct:isReplacedBy is owl:InverseFunctionalProperty of
> dct:replaces ? #dublincore <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23dublincore>
> #pedanticweb <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23pedanticweb>
I think
dct:isReplacedBy owl:inverseOf dct:replaces
might do the trick without bringing in the ontologically
stronger notion of inverse functional property.
Any other views on this? Should we consider declaring this
formally? There are several other pairs to which this would
apply, such as requires/isRequiredBy.
Tom
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|