W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Support for Qualified Cardinality Constraints?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:56:36 -0500
Message-Id: <140055EE-70BF-11D9-A71C-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
To: Stephen Rhoads <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>

On Jan 27, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Stephen Rhoads wrote:

> Just a quick survey ...
> Are there any tools (parsers, stores, reasoners, etc) that have 
> early/proprietary support for qualified cardinality constraints?

None of our tools do (Pellet, OWL-DL reasoner; SWOOP, OWL 

> It would seem to be a no-brainer given that the logic is well known 
> and the functionality was present in DAML+OWL.  All that is missing is 
> a formal syntax in OWL.

Well, qualified number restrictions are more work than unqualified one, 
so we did bail on them in our reasoner given that our mandate was 
specifically to support OWL. More important for us at the moment is 
extending datatype support and our EConnection based extensions. We 
have no "customers" at the moment asking for QNR, either.

It's on our todo list, but pretty far down.

As for SWOOP, without syntax, it's a bit weird to support it :) I guess 
we could try to support DAML+OIL (kill me now), or some other syntax, 
but again, the demands we've acutally gotten haven't been there.

(Which isn't a surprise since our "customers" generally look to us to 
articulate desirable expressivity. We're still building them up as it 

Traditional DL tools like Racer or FaCT or Cerebra support QNR, of 

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 23:56:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC