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

RE: Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:30:47 +0200
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEIGCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



> 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?

I don't think it is - my only question is whether we want to shorten either
owl:UnqualifiedRestriction or owl:QualifiedRestriction to a simple
owl:Restriction. Others seem to want to shorten both to owl:Restriction - I
don't think that works very easily.

(Not that I would support QCR in any case, but noting that many in the group
would like them I hope we can get a workable RDF syntax)

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:32:50 GMT

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