- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:28:22 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/24/2014 09:02 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Hi Peter, > > thanks for your paper. It shows that it is possible to reuse the OWL > vocabulary for closed-world constraint checking. I believe there is little > disagreement that this is feasible in theory and that owl:Restrictions cover > some of the requirements identified in the catalog, esp cardinality and range > restrictions. In fact, the closed-world semantics are probably how a lot of > people already use OWL anyway and some ontology editors have already used > owl:maxCardinality info to limit user input. However, OWL only covers a subset > of the overall requirements and could therefore IMHO only be one aspect of a > larger solution. Which requirements are these? I was unaware that the working group had approved any requirements yet. More later. [...] peter
Received on Saturday, 25 October 2014 05:28:55 UTC