Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Maybe the proposal is that the current (RDF graph) syntax for cardinality > constraints is dropped and all such restrictions have to be qualified (e.g. > to owl:Thing) - this would be monotonic, but a bit of a drag. > What has become apparent to me is that, in fact, all such restrictions *can* be considered qualified when the default qualification is to owl:Thing. Perhaps we can fix the 'drag' syntactically i.e.: <owl:UnqualifiedRestriction> ... implies a 'default' owl:Thing qualification which would be identical to: <owl:QualifiedRestriction> <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="owl:Thing" /> ... certainly this can be done in the abstract syntax -> triples mapping. Is this a big deal? JonathanReceived on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:03:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC