- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:40:37 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > >5/ Cardinality restrictions in the exchange syntax for OWL will use typed > literals, as in > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction . > _:x owl:onProperty ex:foo . > _:x owl:cardinality "5"^^xsd:decimal . Peter- you were strong on the phone today with this, where some people seemed to think going with cardinality as numerals was better for various reasons. I actually have no idea which is better, but the numerals one would be closer to D+O (i.e. not require recoding all the cardinality statements and rewriting all the parsers). Can you outline why you felt so strongly about this so the rest of us can understand the argument? thanks Jim H. p.s. Also, in your example why do you propose decimal rather than integer for cardinality (or positive integer)? Is this important? Would we insist is is any typed literal, or only the correct ones for cardinalities? -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 21:40:48 UTC