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 10:08:07 -0500
Message-Id: <A3CFA636-E2DA-46E6-8281-99135A73CF8F@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "schneid@fzi.de" <schneid@fzi.de>, "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, "ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "alanruttenberg@gmail.com" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Let me be clear - as I've said on every email I am in favor of adding   
QCRs, but doing so by going back to a solution that was unlined seems  
wrong to me. I am advocating we try to find a new solution, but I dont  
have one at the moment
Ps I'd say part/whole is what I heard most, guess I should open an  

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:42, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
>> 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
> We aren't bound by past WG rationale. Had I been a member at the  
> time, I would not have agreed with the decision or, esp., the  
> rationale.
>> - and I don't see what has changed -- there's still very few users  
>> demanding it,
> [snip]
> It is one of the more requested features I get...often mentioned as  
> a deal breaker by significant customers. It is supported by all four  
> major reasoners (Racer, KAON2, Pellet, and FaCT++) and major  
> editors. (Inadequate) Workarounds for their lack was subject of a  
> SWBP note. There was a syntax extension developed by protege3 folks  
> to handle them. It was a key motivation for OWL 1.1 and had strong  
> consensus at all OWLEDs.
> It's lack is often mentioned to me by people as clear examples of  
> OWL being *broken*.
> We should handle it if only to help with interop.
> As for confusing syntax...try working with the (incorrect)  
> workaround some time:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/
> It would be helpful if you were more specific when you say things  
> like "few users demanding it", e.g., "few users are demanding it *of  
> me*" or "I know of few users who are demanding it, though clearly it  
> has vocal support from significant users". Clearly, enough users  
> have requested it that it was 1) put into the spec and 2) implemented.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:09:24 UTC

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