Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68

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 12180