This page has to be rivised completely. OWA and restriction modelling has been mixed up completely. Also the semantics is very unclear by new ill-defined meta-concepts like "features" and "constructs". One example:
"This means that querying the CBNL for information on any construct will provide a basic set of information, which may not be sufficient for building a “form”, which is intended to specify any instance of the construct."
What does it mean exactly "not to be sufficient to build a form"?
Based on the OWA info we can make a form for each Class showing all obligatory properties (direct or inherited). By OWA nature, this form will not contain optional properties because in OWA they are infinite...
This page has to be rivised completely. OWA and restriction modelling has been mixed up completely. Also the semantics is very unclear by new ill-defined meta-concepts like "features" and "constructs".
One example:
"This means that querying the CBNL for information on any construct will provide a basic set of information, which may not be sufficient for building a “form”, which is intended to specify any instance of the construct."
What does it mean exactly "not to be sufficient to build a form"?
Based on the OWA info we can make a form for each Class showing all obligatory properties (direct or inherited). By OWA nature, this form will not contain optional properties because in OWA they are infinite...
Mijn vraag is: de pagina is herzien 18 september jl., het commentaar van Michel is van 5 februari jl., is zijn commentaar nu verwerkt?