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
