W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Fwd: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 16 Apr 2003 16:04:26 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1050527065.16930.50.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 13:44, Jim Hendler wrote:
> The following long message (from [1]) comes from Alan Rector to our 
> comments list, addressing the issue of the qualified constraints - 
> basically, he's asking us to reopen issue 3.2 Qualified Cardinality 
> constraints.  Guus and I would like to hear the WG's feelings on 
> this.  Since there's no specific document addressed (although it 
> would require changes in every document), Guus and I will handle this 
> email and its response.
>   -JH
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0040.html

Just as we encourage editors to reply to issues about specs
by quoting spec text, I encourage you to reply regarding
decisions made by the WG by quoting from the decision records.

i.e. from


Feel free to edit the issues list to make it a better summary
of the WG proceedings (though of course we don't want to
rewrite history).

In the issues list we find a nicely edited rendition of
Jeremy's proposal to close, which I might expect to find
under "resolution" rather than under
the issue description. The "resolution" field cites the 25 Apr minutes,
which is good... and yes, the minutes just say that Jeremy's proposal
of 19Apr was accepted.

So while it's probably OK as is, I encourage you to take this
opportunity to move some of the issue description under the "resolution"
field in the issues list.

Maybe I'll just do it... ok, done.
  $Revision: 1.53 $ of $Date: 2003/04/16 20:56:46 $
I edited the markup of the issues list to be XML well-formed while
I was at it.

Oh bother... now that I go and read what he wrote, I see that
he's well aware of our decision record and it doesn't satisfy

His argument to reopen the issue seems quite compelling.
I'm convinced.

> >V) "There are no compelling use cases."  To the contrary.  Where 
> >cardinality restrictions are required, we have found that it is 
> >almost always qualified cardinality restrictions rather than 
> >unqualified restrictions which are required.  Consider the following 
> >use cases/examples, all of which have arisen in the development of 
> >real ontologies for real applications:
> >
> >a)    Anatomy:  "The normal hand has exactly five fingers of which 
> >one is a thumb"  (It has many other subdivisions
> >including the palm, back of the hand, thenar region, etc.so an 
> >unqualified restriction on the property has-subdivision
> >does not capture the meaning. (innumerable similar examples, e.g. 
> >"The heart has four chambers two atria and two
> >ventricles", etc.  The number of cases in anatomy is legion.
> >
> >b)  Bio-ontologies and chemistry: i) "Tricarboxylic acid contains 
> >exactly three carboxyl groups" - but also an acidic
> >group.  "GPCRs have exactly seven trans-membrane alpha-helixes" (but 
> >many other subunits which distinguish one
> >GPCR from another).  (GPCRs are an important class of receptor 
> >proteins in cellular control and the subject of virtually an
> >entire sub-discpline of molecular biology.) "Haemoglobin consists of 
> >four subunits each of which contains exactly one haem group each of 
> >which contains exactly one iron ion" - each subunit consists of 
> >numerous other groups besides the haeme group and contains many 
> >other ions.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 17:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC