W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > January 2003

Re: DAML CongoProcess example question

From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:32:27 -0800
Message-ID: <3E1F580B.CECE284B@ai.sri.com>
To: Vera Zaychik <vzaychik@atl.lmco.com>
CC: www-ws@w3.org

Vera Zaychik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> here is an excerpt from CongoProcess.daml defining PutInCart atomic
> process:
> <daml:Class rdf:ID="PutInCart">
>  <rdfs:subClassOf
> rdf:resource="http://www.daml.org/services/daml-s/0.7/Process.daml#AtomicProcess"/>
>
>  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>   <daml:Restriction>
>    <daml:onProperty
> rdf:resource="http://www.daml.org/services/daml-s/0.7/Process.daml#input"/>
>
>   </daml:Restriction>
>  </rdfs:subClassOf>
> </daml:Class>
>
> Now, here's a question. Is that a valid DAML? Any restriction on
> property is supposed to be to something, either value or class or
> cardinality. Right? What is this restriction restricting?

You're right.  This was not valid DAML.  I've just replaced that restriction with this:

  <daml:Restriction daml:cardinality="1">
   <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#putInCartBookISBN"/>
  </daml:Restriction>

(I declared a new property, putInCartBookISBN, elsewhere in the file.)

The point of the restriction here is just to establish the cardinality.

Thanks very much for pointing this out!  And sorry for the slow response.  (Better late
than never, I hope :-).

Regards,
David Martin

>
>
> Thanks,
> Vera Zaychik
> LM ATL
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 18:30:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:41 GMT