Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml

From: Pat Hayes (
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

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.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

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