- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:29:01 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 6:20 PM -0400 4/16/03, Jonathan Borden wrote: >As I recall the discussion at the Amsterdam F2F -- I had wondered if such >features would be needed by biomedical ontologies and thought that I was >told that this wasn't the case. > >The use cases he cites are compelling (at least to me), and if indeed >qualified cardinalities *are* needed to support these then I strongly >support reopening the issue. > >Jonathan > I am worried that the feature most complained about in Daml+oil and also the ones most misused were these. Let me make a suggestion -- if we were to decide to include these, we would need to write the one-paragraph, easy to understand explanation that would go in the Overview -- anyone want to take a stab at a suggested one? -JH p.s. Any change that would require us to change every document and that is exposed by test cases makes me nervous at this late date -- I'd want to see pretty strong support for the change... > >> >> The following long message (from [1]) comes from Alan Rector to our >> comments list, addressing the issue of the qualified constraints - >> basically, he's asking us to reopen issue 3.2 Qualified Cardinality >> constraints. Guus and I would like to hear the WG's feelings on >> this. Since there's no specific document addressed (although it >> would require changes in every document), Guus and I will handle this >> email and its response. >> -JH >> [1] >> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0040.html >> -- 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 Wednesday, 16 April 2003 18:29:13 UTC