• To: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Subject: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• From: "m batsis" <mbatsis@n...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:04:14 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Netsmart S.A., Greece
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211111440.54331.miles@m...> <3DCFCA63.8040000@n...> <200211111542.19755.miles@m...>
• Reply-to: mbatsis@n...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Miles Sabin wrote:

>Your response now is,
>
>  That's no good, you don't get the equivalence statements.
>
>But I _don't_want_ the equivalence statements: I just want the mapping, 
>and I really don't care whether or not OWL equivalence statements can 
>be derived from it or not.
>

Sorry Miles, perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't really care about getting 
the equivalence statements themselves, I care for implicit statements,  
inferences etc that result after the equivalence statements are applied. 
In this case, I am talking graphs that include both ontologies in them 
(as that is the case when using equivalentTo).

Cheers,

Manos

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: "m batsis" <mbatsis@n...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by Date: OASIS TC Call For Participation: Tax XML TC
• Previous by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread