W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:39:48 -0500
Message-Id: <805B33DD-1FA7-4EB3-9C3C-C973251119B3@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Which wins, history or understandability?
I vote understandability.
maxQualifiedCardinality or qualifiedMaxCardinality would seem more  
likely to be remembered and understood.
If no one else thinks so, then consider the matter dropped.



On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> ISSUE-68 has to do with a nonmonotonicity in the mapping rules for
> qualified cardinality restrictions.  As pointed out in several places
> this can be alleviated by using the DAML+OIL solution of having a
> different property for qualified cardinalities.
> I thus propose using
> owl:minCardinalityQ
> owl:maxCardinalityQ
> owl:cardinalityQ
> just as in DAML+OIL and close the issue with this change.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> PS:  Just about any name could be used, but this one has historical
>      antecedents.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 18:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT