- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:30:47 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> What has become apparent to me is that, in fact, all such > restrictions *can* > be considered qualified when the default qualification is to owl:Thing. > Perhaps we can fix the 'drag' syntactically i.e.: > > <owl:UnqualifiedRestriction> > ... implies a 'default' owl:Thing qualification > which would be identical to: > > <owl:QualifiedRestriction> > <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="owl:Thing" /> > ... > certainly this can be done in the abstract syntax -> triples mapping. > > Is this a big deal? I don't think it is - my only question is whether we want to shorten either owl:UnqualifiedRestriction or owl:QualifiedRestriction to a simple owl:Restriction. Others seem to want to shorten both to owl:Restriction - I don't think that works very easily. (Not that I would support QCR in any case, but noting that many in the group would like them I hope we can get a workable RDF syntax) Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:32:50 UTC