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

Re: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:00:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030423.150023.130919034.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: mdean@bbn.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions 
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:44:02 -0700

> > First, I think the reference needs to discuss
> > what is the preferred way for writing multiple restrictions on a single
> > property (I assume this is as an intersectionOf Restrictions, although
> > this is very ugly, and I much prefer the syntax used in my previous
> > message, if it's legal and correct OWL).
> 
> Agreed.  I normally use multiple Restrictions with the same
> value for onProperty.
> 
> 	Mike

If you are doing this in the RDF encoding you are going to be unpleasantly
surprised.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 15:00:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT