- From: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:32:01 +0300
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "tim finin" <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] >Sent: Thursday, 18 April, 2002 2:28 >To: tim finin >Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 > > > >I suggest HasOnlyOne for UniqueProperty and IsTheOnlyOne for >UnambiguousProperty. Then one could say things like HasOnlyOne Father >(or IsTheOnlyOne FatherOf.) > In my day to day work I have come across a further distinction between two 'types' of IsTheOnlyOne that I believe one may need to make when dealing with properties with cardinalities greater than one. It is perhaps best to explain with examples. Start with a class Woman and a property Children, where there is a priori no upper bound on the cardinality of the instances of persons that we may associate with each instance of Woman via the Children property. It then becomes most natural to regard a *collection* of person instances as the object associated with each instance of Woman by way of the Children property. Now, if in my modelling I wish to accept as a biological or social convention that no two women can be the mothers of one and the same child, then I may wish to express this by applying to the Children property the constraint 'IsTheOnlyOne', with the intended semantics being that given, say, an instance Emma and an instance Victoria, if Emma != Victoria then the collection Children(Emma) is *disjoint* from the collection Children(Victoria). In another context, I may have a class Committee with a property Members, again with cardinality greater than one, and in the domain I am modelling it may be that one wishes to enforce a rule that states that although two separate committees may have an overlap of members, no two commitees may have exactly the same list of members. Again I may be tempted to express this by applying to the Members property the constraint 'IsTheOnlyOne', where now the intended semantics is that given, say, an instance 'ForeignAffairs Committee' and an instance 'HomeAffairs Committee', if ForeignAffairs Committee != HomeAffairs Committee then Members(ForeignAffairs Committee) != Members(HomeAffairs Committee) in the sense of *set inequality*, rather then disjointness. Obviously these two different semantics cannot both be the meaning ascribed to IsTheOnlyOne, but expressing these is something that we may wish to enable, thus requiring two different syntactical expressions. -- Ziv
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:32:35 UTC