- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:50:50 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <mdean@bbn.com>
> > When you say "real expressiveness" vs. "close to useless" expressiveness, > how should I reconcile this? Is there a use case for this > expressiveness/feature so we can better judge its value? > Mike suggested Mule. I took this as a Mule is a Thing with exactly one parent which is a Donkey and one parent which is a Horse. Without Qualified cardinality constraint it is difficult/impossible to say that. With them it is straightforward. The question is does the frequency of mules in real world ontologies justify including a "wizard-level" feature that adds four or five keywords to the language.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:51:26 UTC