W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:31:11 -0400
Message-ID: <020701c1ea23$80558dd0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> As issue owner, since I believe I have heard consensus, I now summarise
that
> consensus and propose a resolution.
>
> Summary of consensus
> ====================
> At the face2face no one wished to include qualified restrictions in OWL.

Um. I'm not entirely happy with this summary for the following reasons:

1) The charter at least suggests that we use DAML+OIL with changes if there
are good reasons for doing so. There should be some burden of at least
explaning why a change is being proposed. e.g.
- I assume the cardinality Q constraints were put into DAML+OIL for a good
reason. Why?
- What are the problems caused by these constraints?
- Are they simply syntactic sugar?
- If they are simply syntactic sugar, which is what I thought was the
explanation of why they might be dropped, then we should have a lower burden
for dropping them. On the other hand, if they are other than syntactic
sugar, we should have a higher burden as this will change DAML+OIL in other
than a merely cosmetic fashion.

2) Mike Dean had already raised another issue [3.2 Qualified Restrictions].
How is this issue different from the issue at hand? I presume Mike has a
desire for qualified restrictions, otherwise why was that issue raised. At
the very least we should hear what Mike et al. have to say before closing
the issue.

3) I thought that at the F2F we were trying to come to a compromise on a
single OWL language. It seems that lots of folks were unhappy on both sides
of the compromise. I though the Q restrictions were 'dropped' as part of
this compromise process. Since we have decided to have two conformance
levels, what are the problems having something very much like DAML+OIL at
the full level. Note: the issues with usability look to me like they will
need to be resolved at the 'presentation syntax' level.

>
> Proposed Resolution
> ===================
>
> I propose that the WG
> - decides that the qualified restrictions of DAML+OIL are not part of OWL.
> - approves the test cases of
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0126.html
>   as reflecting this decision.
> - closes the unmentioned-qualified-restrictions issue.
>
>
> If there is anyone who believes they should be part of OWL, please respond
> to this message - ideally arguing for retaining them.
>

I think this issue deserves at the very least a written explanation for the
archives. The minutes of the F2F do not have such an explanation.

Jonathan
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 13:36:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT