Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68

• From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
• Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:39:48 -0500
• To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <805B33DD-1FA7-4EB3-9C3C-C973251119B3@gmail.com>

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