RE: Qualified Cardinality Restrictions

> 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)


Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:32:50 UTC