Re: [poe] Use of cardinality restrictions in the ontology?

@nitmws : I agree the ontology should express these things if possible; it may also help in specifying our testing goals.

I am _not_ a good OWL2 expert, I would expect @simonstey to see this. But I think the same expression can be made slightly more simple:

```
:Rule a rdfs:Class , owl:Class, skos:Concept ;
    rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                      owl:onProperty :action ;
                      owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
                    ].
```

But: does the IM means "a Rule MUST have an Action via the action property" there must be exactly one, or whether there must be at least one? Because if the latter, then ``owl:minCardinality`` should be used.

(As an aside: I always found the [OWL 2 Primer](https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/) an excellent source and a helpful document...)


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/198#issuecomment-309637966 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 03:55:36 UTC