W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > August 2010

RE: RE : [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for competency questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:46:36 +0200
To: 'Pierre-Antoine Champin' <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F148@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I definitely don't like that one ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre-Antoine Champin [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] 
Sent: jeudi, 26. août 2010 11:10
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for competency questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

On 26/08/2010 11:00, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Thanks for clarification.
> 
> I have to look at this and in particular the use of cardinality on
> properties. That looks interesting.

Note also that an equivalent restriction would be

  ma:Image rdfs:subClassOf [
    a owl:Restriction ;
    owl:onProperty ma:duration ;
    owl:allValuesFrom owl:Nothing
  ].

I am not very fond of this pattern, that I find a bit awkward, but I
believe it is acceptable in more OWL dialects than the cardinality
restriction.

  pa
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 12:49:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 August 2010 12:49:24 GMT