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: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:59:27 -0500
Message-Id: <6EAA415B-5FF1-42B5-8D08-8C556F3DD8B6@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, alanruttenberg@gmail.com
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I remind you all that the WG reopened the case of QCRs due to Alan  
Rector's comments.  At that point we found no concrete syntaxfor  
which there was a consensus and we chose to POSTPONE the issue - I  
don't see that the situation has changed - if the OWL 1.0 WG felt  
that the DAML solution was appropriate we certainly would have chosen  
to add it when we reopened the issue.  We didn't - and I don't see  
what has changed -- there's still very few users demanding it, and it  
still requires creating an arbitrarily ugly and confusing syntax.   
WHen I thought the OWL 1.1 syntax worked, I was happy with this, but  
now that it has been exposed to have troubles, I don't see going back  
to earlier solutions that were already rejected as a way out - seems  
to me work should go into fixing what is there, and if that is  
undoable, postpone again.

On Dec 17, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 13:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC