Matthias Samwald
Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:16:17 -0700
Yes, qualified cardinality restrictions would really be very useful! I had a look at the documentation of the OWL 1.1 proposal, and I have to say that the "1.1" is a bit misleading, since it will not be a W3C standard. I guess that this is an attempt to push the W3C and software developers to adopt the proposal, but it could also lead to puzzling conflicts in versioning (as has been the case with RSS [1], for instance).
It would also be interesting to know how current systems (ontology editors, validators etc.) would handle OWL 1.1. Would they silently ignore the new statements added by 1.1, or would we have to deal with warnings/errors etc.? kind regards, Matthias Samwald [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)#History On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:25:24 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > Hello David, > > > I think you are referring to the lack of qualified cardinality > restrictions (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/) > > The proposed OWL 1.1 includes them and should shortly (in the next > few months) be supported by the major OWL reasoners, including > Pellet, and FaCT++ (and hence Protege). > > OWL 1.1 is described at http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/. In the > overview search for SROIQ. > > There is an OWL workshop coming up: http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/ > OWLWorkshop06.html Perhaps you should consider attending. > > Let me know if I've misunderstood. > > > Regards, > Alan