From: mburke (mburke@darpa.mil)
Date: 04/11/02
I agree that it is much more straight forward. Murray A. Burke Program Manager DARPA/IXO 3701 N. Fairfax Drive Phone: 703-696-2303 Arlington, VA 22203-1714 Fax: 703-696-2203 mailto: mburke@darpa.mil DSN: 426-2303 -----Original Message----- From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:51 PM To: tim finin; Adam Pease Cc: daml-all@daml.org Subject: RE: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION - final draft Tim, the terminology you suggested is clearer than the current uniqueProperty and unambiguousProperty. --katia -----Original Message----- From: owner-daml-all@mail.daml.org [mailto:owner-daml-all@mail.daml.org]On Behalf Of tim finin Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:32 PM To: Adam Pease Cc: daml-all@daml.org Subject: Re: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION - final draft 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. Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST