- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:25:42 -0500
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Frank van Harmelen wrote: [...] > One of the things that struck me in Peter's list of comparing OIL-Standard and DAML-ONT was: > > > OIL-Standard DAML-1.2 > > > > Cardinality Restrictions local (and global) global only > > This means that in DAML-ONT I cannot have a property "hasWheels" with a different cardinality restriction for bicycles and cars (since only one global cardinality restriction is allowed per slot). > > All other slot-restrictions in DAML-ONT are local (as they are in OIL). No, daml:domain and daml:range are global. Well.. there's a local version of range. A local version of domain has been suggested, I think. > Why has cardinality been handled differently? No particular reason... the local (i.e. per-domain) parts of DAML were added sort of in a hurry, and we didn't really finish the job. Since -- these requests would make DAML consistent with OIL, and -- they have been made and seconded, and -- nobody has objected (including me), but -- I'm not in a good position to edit it into the spec just now I consider these TODO items. i.e. range-dependent-domain and domain-dependent-cardinality. (along with defined classes; cf my message of Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:02:59 -0500 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Oct/0019.html though it's starting to look like the need for all of OIL's defined classes may be met by the current DAML draft.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 14 October 2000 23:26:39 UTC