Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (UniqueProp-badname)

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:01, tim finin wrote:
> The following issue was raised at the Amsterdam face-to-face meeting.

Thanks for taking the ball on this one...

about issue names: on the sake of folks for whom
"Amsterdam-1" won't be nmemonic, I suggest


where N is the number that Mike S gives you in reply.

Substantively, I agree this is an issue; one of my colleagues
can never remember whic way UnambiguousProperty goes;
he prefers one-to-many vs. many-to-one.
But I know he wouldn't recognize the issue by the name "Amsterdam 1".

> This is an attempt to capture it in text, as promised in the conference
> call of 11 April, 2002.
>  DAML+OIL has concepts of UniqueProperty and UnambiguousProperty that
>  are very useful but whose names seem to cause some confusion for
>  people learning the language.  Assuming we have the same concepts in
>  OWL, we should decide on names that will be intuitive or at least
>  minimize confusion.  For a DAML+OIL triple (S,P,0), if P is a
>  uniqueProperty then S, the subject value, uniquely identifies O, the
>  object value.  If P is an UnambiguousProperty then then O determines S.
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 13:20:28 UTC