W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: ISSUE-122: Proposal to accept and resolve

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:06:58 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDF88@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:37 PM
>To: OWL Working Group WG
>Subject: ISSUE-122: Proposal to accept and resolve
>The latest version of the syntax uses a separate vocabulary for
>qualified and unqualified cardinality restrictions. This resolves the
>issue raised. I therefore propose that we accept the issue but
>immediately mark it resolved by this fix.

Oh, I can see it in the RDF mapping:

  _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction
  _:x owl:qualifiedCardinality "n"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
  _:x owl:onProperty T(OPE)
  _:x owl:onClass T(CE)

This solves the problem. Thank you! :)


Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 23:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC