W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:50:50 +0100
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <mdean@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAENKCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> When you say "real expressiveness" vs. "close to useless" expressiveness,
> how should I reconcile this? Is there a use case for this
> expressiveness/feature so we can better judge its value?

Mike suggested Mule.

I took this as a Mule is a Thing with exactly one parent which is a Donkey
and one parent which is a Horse.

Without Qualified cardinality constraint it is difficult/impossible to say

With them it is straightforward.

The question is does the frequency of mules in real world ontologies
justify including a "wizard-level" feature that adds four or five keywords
to the language.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:51:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC