RE: plural properties should become singular

On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 2/5/14 5:36 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >>> For my projects, i've often use OWL Restrictions to impose
> cardinality and range constraints, but with my web-developer hat on,
> this is really difficult to understand, so having an alternative
> notation would be useful, as long as we can give it some formal
> semantics which may tie it back to OWL.
> >> Gregg,
> >>
> >> We should use OWL where relations appropriate.
> > Just to let you know that I'm willing to add in the OWL stuff.
> > I have some experience with that, especially with regard to
> reasoning.
> > (That is: I know well what impact each addition has on possible
> derived knowledge.)
> >
> > Do we turn this into an issue?
> >
> > Ruben
> >
> 
> Yes, if that works re., the standaard protocol for setting the
> framework for this emerging vocabulary.

Sure, if you want we can turn this into an issue. It's now ISSUE-35 [1].

Everyone can add issues to our issue track on GitHub [2]. Feel free to do
so. Let's just try to keep most of the discussions on the mailing list.
Typically this makes it easier for people to follow along. So when you raise
an issue, please also inform the list.


[1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/35
[2] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler