I think that this is the wrong way to ask the question. The real
question is "what do I want to say?" If the thing that you are trying
to express naturally involves inverse properties then you should use
them. As a bonus the reasoners will see and understand the inverse
properties that you use. If the thing that you are trying to say
doesn't need inverse properties, then adding inverse properties to
your ontology will be artificial and won't improve the result. This
is a generic answer that is independent of what owl construct you
would be asking about.
I can think of one reason to reject the above answer. If you have
chosen some restricted owl profile for improved reasoning performance,
you would constrain yourself to that profile even when using a more
expressive language would be more natural.
-Timothy
On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Jdisc Sobrename wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know If I don´t use inverse properties
> (objectProperties), I will loose power when reasoning over ontologies?
> Will it cause any expressivity problem prohibiting this kind of
> properties?
>
>
>
> best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> João
>
> Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! + Buscados: Top 10 -
> Celebridades - Música -
> Esportes_______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owlInstructions for unsubscribing:
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
