- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 06 Jun 2002 12:51:34 -0500
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 12:31, Frank van Harmelen wrote: > > > I propose to close this issue by renaming this language element > as HasOnlyOne, > as first proposed by Pat Hayes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0146.html: > > "This will allow expressions like HasOnlyOne Father" Hmm... I'm not sure I like it. In the presentation syntax I use, that would be: :father a ont:HasOnlyOne. Kinda goofy. In RDF/XML, it would be: <ont:HasOnlyOne rdf:about="#father"/> Hmm... not too bad. I don't suppose I'd object, if it came to that. i.e. I can live with that. Other candidates I've heard of, in case anybody finds them preferable... <ont:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="#father"/> <ont:ManyToOne rdf:about="#father"/> By the way... is there a separate issue for UnambiguousProperty being a bad name? What would be the analog of HasOnlyOne? Analogs of the above two: <ont:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="#father"/> <ont:Injective rdf:about="#personalMailbox"/> (i.e. if ?x personalMailbox ?z and ?y personalMailbox ?z then ?x=?y) <ont:ManyToOne rdf:about="#father"/> <ont:OneToMany rdf:about="#personalMailbox"/> I think I prefer ManyToOne and OneToMany. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 13:51:06 UTC