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

RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:48 +0100
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <mike.dean@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGENICDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> Can this be confirmed i.e. does this mean that there is _effectively_ no
> difference between the qualified and unqualified restrictions?

No no, that wasn't my point.

My understanding is that the qualified ones are in DAML+OIL because they
were free to implement. i.e. the additional cost of implementing them over
the unqualified ones was trivial.

I think that they do add real expressiveness to the language.
The case against them is that even if that expressiveness is free to
implement, it costs learners, documentors, ontology designers etc.
Given that the particular expressiveness is close to useless, then a
cost-benefit analysis suggests it goes.

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:46:09 UTC

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