W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:08:35 -0400
To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040610010835.GA24034@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:

> I must admit that upon re-reading the UC&R doc I am a bit surprised that
> disjunction has fallen off the radar. I certainly think users like being
> able to form arbitrary boolean constructions.

FWIW, I was just thinking this today! Along the lines, "don't we need
disjunction as an explicit requirement?" I don't know how or why
disjunction use cases fell out of the doc; maybe this is one of those
many mistakes I've made, but if so, it was totally unwitting.

In other words, I think that disjunction should be an explicit
requirement about disjunction, and I would be happy to help someone
craft a use case that motivates it.

> actually getting the benefit of the new system. If features like
> disjunction are so rarely useful, then I fear a lot of us have wasted a
> lot of time defining whole new languages like OWL and SWRL for
> expressing things that are even more esoteric!

I don't think that's the case at all -- rather, I think that
disjunction just fell off the map. Let's get it back on.

Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 21:10:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:44 UTC