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

> 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.

@iherman this statement shows a key problem of the current specifications: the free-text defines primarily cardinality in an (slightly) ambiguous way. To pin down the wording to be definitely unambiguous the free-text would get more verbose. Therefore I think the definition of cardinality by the ontology would set a clear status.

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 06:46:04 UTC