W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071217.032444.199425563.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, alanruttenberg@gmail.com

The resolution to not include QCRs in OWL had the following rationale
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0264.html
(numbering added):

The qualified restrictions of DAML+OIL:
1/ - have added to the difficulty of learning the language
2/ - have not been used in practice
3/ - are barely understood by the community
4/ - potentially add to the difficulty of implementing the language
5/ - have no compelling use cases


Since then there have been multiple calls for the expressive power of
QCRs, including the one by Alan Rector back in 2003, overturning at
least points 2 and 5.  The use of QCRs at least partly overturns point
3.  Several implementations of QCRs exist in both UI tools (e.g., Protege 4)
and reasoners (e.g., Pellet), overturning point 4.

I think that this is quite a significant change from the situation in
2002.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

PS: For more information on QCRs in the WebOnt WG, see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions



From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:18:32 -0500

> I have no objection to the solution that was used in OWL 1.0 for  
> this.  So far, if a feature adds problems to DL, we apparently throw  
> it out immediately, but if it causes problems to full, we try to find  
> a work around without worrying too much if it cases problems or  
> confusion - I just fine this asymmetry to be troubling.  So I propose  
> we don't include QCRs, since the solution proposed is one that was  
> already considered and rejected in OWL 1.0 - what has changed?
>   -JH
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 08:46:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT