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

Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:34:29 -0400
Message-Id: <200204242334.TAA25654@cam-mbx1.bbn.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> 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.

Issue 3.2 [1] resulted from my survey [2] of DAML+OIL
features not included in the WebOnt Requirements.  It was
the result of a comparison rather than a need.

I don't have a specific requirement or use case, but
indicated in some offline layering discussions that I
wouldn't mind seeing this capability remain in Level 2
(about level 1.9 :-)).

I'm under the impression that qualified restrictions do
allow us to express some concepts that we couldn't otherwise
(although the Mule example I've been using lately could
probably be expressed using hasClass because it only
requires cardinality 1 for the Horse and Donkey parents) and
that they are reasonably well understood and implemented by
the DL community.  I don't expect most users to use them.
From a marketing perspective, it's not bad to have a few
features in our ontology language that couldn't readily be
expressed in, say, UML.

Ian Horrocks may be able to cite some specific use cases
from his work.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.2-Qualified-Restrictions

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0174.html
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 19:39:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC