Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml

From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/01/01


>
>4) The Validator raises an error because hasMom is samePropertyAs
>hasMother, but hasMom is an ObjectProperty and hasMother is a
>UniqueProperty (which could be an ObjectProperty or DatatypeProperty).
>Personally, I don't think this should be an error; it should only be an
>error if you say an ObjectProperty is samePropertyAs a DatatypeProperty.
>I'd like to get the committee's opinion on the situation.

I agree.

>5) The Validator raises errors anytime a cardinality restriction is
>violated. In the case of the example, this is mostly because Adam,
>Santa, Peter, and Ian do not have any parents mentioned. I don't think
>an error should be raise here, because other values for the property may
>be found on other web pages. One possibility, is to raise an error only
>when a maximum cardinality constraint is violated, but even in this
>case, it is possible that an as yet undiscovered equivalentTo property
>will be found, reducing the total number of distinct values. Therefore,
>I suggest that all violations of cardinality constraints be presented as
>warnings (not errors), but would like feedback from the rest of the
>committee.

I agree again.

>
>What this situation indicates to me, is that we need a much clearer
>description of exactly how should treat a DAML document, i.e., what
>results in an error, what results in a warning, etc. Do you think this
>is an issue for the Joint Committee or the WebOnt working group?

JC. Its our baby, we have the responsibility to get it right.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
[email protected] 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST