- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 19 Sep 2002 22:38:54 -0500
- To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org, bobrow@parc.com
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 16:58, Deborah McGuinness wrote: > From: bobrow@parc.com > To: public-webont-comments-request@w3.org > Subject: Support for OWL-lite and full OWL > Date: 17 Sep 2002 11:17:37 -0700 [...] > I think it would be useful to perhaps simplify the notation even further > -- by making the special cases of cardinality restriction be named > (for example no-filler, functional, no-more-than-one, at-least-one). > Although this is not the same notation as full-OWL there is a direct > translation, and OWL-lite should be easy to read for someone not well > versed in the art. Yes, I tend to agree; thanks for the prod (again). I keep forgetting to raise this with the WG; see also: Re: Feature synopsis: content comments (named cardinalities) From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) Date: Wed, Sep 04 2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Sep/0005.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 23:38:57 UTC