Re: Case for Reinstatement of Qualified Cardinality Restrictions from Jeremy Carroll on 2003-04-17 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from April 2003)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:34:36 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304172134.37038.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

I am happy to change.

Syntactic choices.

Alan seems to think that we can just add a valuesFrom triple e.g.

<owl:Restriction>
  <owl:cardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">2</owl:cardinality>
  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&eg;hasDigit"/>
  <owl:fromValues>
     <owl:Class rdf:about="&eg;Thumbs"/>
  </owl:fromValues>
</owl:Restriction>

Unfortunately this contains a standard restricition inside it


<owl:Restriction>
  <owl:cardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">2</owl:cardinality>
  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&eg;hasDigit"/>
</owl:Restriction>

and the relationship is non-monotonic.

Thus we have to change something ...
  D+O used cardinalityQ instead of cardinality
  Pat was suggesting the rather clearer cardinalityFrom
The other options are to:
  change the class from say owl:Restriction to owl:QualifiedRestriction
  change the onProperty to say owl:qualifiedProperty

I believe any of those could be made to work monotonically.
(The non-mon worry is only an OWL Full issue).

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 15:34:23 UTC