Re: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

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.

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?
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]

Professor James Hendler
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)

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 18:29:13 UTC