Re: LANG: compliance levels

Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
> I would suggest that where universal quantification is being widely
> used in practice, it is either as a result of its being the only
> available option and/or the fact that many users assume an implicit
> existential - it never occurs to them that people all of whose
> children are doctors may not have any children at all (I would hardly
> bother telling you what type their children must be if they don't have
> any children, would I?).
>

Hmm. What about combining toClass with minCardinality, so that there would
have to be, e.g., at least one child, and that child would have to be a
doctor -- or would that just be a minCardinalityQ?

Jonathan