RE: ISSUE-122: Proposal to accept and resolve

>-----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.
>
>Ian
>

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! :)

Cheers,
Michael