- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:35:16 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Martin, On 4/22/2011 6:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as compared to the alternatives. > I really don't understand why you need this cardinality description in a label of a universal. If a developer should get informed about such axioms on a term, then a documentation is a good place for this kind of knowledge. For example, my SpecGen v6 fork [1,2] transforms such information directly from an RDF graph into a readable HTML documentation that includes RDFa as well, i.e., you even can get the full RDF graph out of an HTML+RDFa serialized specification documentation. A nice showcase term that illustrates the defined restrictions that are set on this universal is olo:Slot [3]. Cheers, Bob [1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/smiy/files/SpecGen/v6/specgen6.tar.gz/download [2] http://smiy.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/smiy/specgen/trunk/ (this version is up-to-date) [3] http://purl.org/ontology/olo/core#Slot
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 17:35:43 UTC