Which wins, history or understandability? I vote understandability. maxQualifiedCardinality or qualifiedMaxCardinality would seem more likely to be remembered and understood. If no one else thinks so, then consider the matter dropped. okp? -Alan On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > ISSUE-68 has to do with a nonmonotonicity in the mapping rules for > qualified cardinality restrictions. As pointed out in several places > this can be alleviated by using the DAML+OIL solution of having a > different property for qualified cardinalities. > > I thus propose using > > owl:minCardinalityQ > owl:maxCardinalityQ > owl:cardinalityQ > > just as in DAML+OIL and close the issue with this change. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research > > PS: Just about any name could be used, but this one has historical > antecedents. >Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 18:40:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC