I would not be happy with this solution - it creates yet more, seemingly unecessary terms, and it also was, in DAML days, the single feature name that confused the most people - I thought we were proposing a clean solution that didn't require creating a new syntactic feature, this is quite different - so I oppose closing this issue with Peter's suggested solution. -JH 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. > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 21:27:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC