- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:08:07 -0500
- 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 -JH Ps I'd say part/whole is what I heard most, guess I should open an issue. 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