From: David Martin ([email protected])
Date: 04/11/02
tim finin wrote: > Adam -- I had uniqueProperty and unambiguousProperty > confused. But, for the example you gave "Person has SSN" > it should be both. That is, hasSSN is both a uniqueProperty > and an unambiguousProperty, since it is one-to-one (at least > in the idealized world). I think this makes the example more > interesting, in fact. > > The W3C Webont working group is looking for better names to > use for these qualities of properties for its new language. > What do people think of using names like oneToOneProperty, > manyToOnePropoerty, oneToManyProperty, and manyToManyProperty. UniqueProperty works well for me (I find it easy to grok), but I can't say the same for UnambiguousProperty (I find it ambiguous :-). I'm afraid oneToOneProperty, etc. will introduce more confusion than they eliminate, because of the ambiguity around "one" - does it mean "exactly one" or "at most one". However, I supposed that could be addressed by having names like oneToExactlyOneProperty and OneToAtMostOneProperty, if those aren't seen as too cumbersome. - Dave > > > Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST