Re: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

>>I agree as well.
>>Pat, what kind of notation are you using?
>>   [minCardinalityFrom P 1]
>>   [maxCardinalityFrom [Complement P] 0]
>>   [Hand partOf CardinalityFrom Fingers 5]
>
>I made it up, sorry.  I hate description-logic syntax.
>
>>I think that the last one is in N3 like
>>   :Hand a owl:Restriction;
>>         owl:onProperty :partOf;
>>         daml:cardinalityQ 5.
>>         daml:hasClassQ :Fingers.
>
>Right, exactly. Typing this stuff makes my knuckles hurt.

My understanding of the English language is not
complete at all, but that one sounds good ;-)

A while ago Geoff Chappell pointed out that
I maybe made some bugs wrt unique names
assumption in the inconsistency detections for
owl:maxCardinality and he was quite right, so we
corrected that in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/owl-rules
and also added stuff for owl:maxCardinalityQ
but it is not a nice simple inference rule
but instead

{:rule20q0.
 ?R owl:onProperty ?P;
    owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
    owl:hasClassQ ?A.
 ?M math:equalTo 0.
 ?X a ?R;
    ?P ?Y.
 ?Y a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.


{:rule20q1.
 ?R owl:onProperty ?P;
    owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
    owl:hasClassQ ?A.
 ?M math:equalTo 1.
 ?X a ?R;
    ?P ?Y1, ?Y2.
 ?Y2 owl:differentFrom ?Y1.
 ?Y1 a ?A.
 ?Y2 a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.


{:rule20q2.
 ?R owl:onProperty ?P;
    owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
    owl:hasClassQ ?A.
 ?M math:equalTo 2.
 ?X a ?R;
    ?P ?Y1, ?Y2, ?Y3.
 ?Y2 owl:differentFrom ?Y1.
 ?Y3 owl:differentFrom ?Y1, ?Y2.
 ?Y1 a ?A.
 ?Y2 a ?A.
 ?Y3 a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.


Does that make sense?
Any idea to make it more abstract?


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/