Re: Handling plurals

Whoops! Missed the reply-all button. Why do these lists not have a 
reply-to line added?

>>> I would imagine that if you wanted to go deeper into the modelling it
>>> could get tricky fast. Don't know, but I expect there are quite a few
>>> papers around on the general subject. I wonder if you could say the
>>> class People subclass of Person but with property members
>>> cardinality>1..?
>>
>> Is People a subclass of Person? I wouldn't say two people is a
>> particular instance of a person. Perhaps superclass.
>
> Yep, better, but that's still pretty forced - John and Jane are two
> instances of the class Person, but only one instance of the class
> People. [John and Jane] definitely isn't a Person, is [John] a People?

I wouldn't personally have it as a superclass, no.

Perhaps we could set up a subclass of rdf:Bag as follows (excuse my 
appalling RDF/XML):

<rdfs:Class eg:People>
	<owl:subclassOf rdf:resource="&rdf;Bag">
	<owl:Restriction>
		<owl:OnProperty rdf:resource="&rdf;first">
		<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="&eg;Person">
	</owl:Restriction>
	<owl:Restriction>
		<owl:OnProperty rdf:resource="&rdf;rest">
		<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="&eg;People">
	</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:Class>

though this would need to be modified to cope with rdf:nil, if indeed 
it works at all.

Chris