RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

>
> 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
that.

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.