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: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:48:09 -0400
Message-ID: <039701c1ec5f$d6a0df80$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <mdean@bbn.com>
Jeremy,
...
>
> 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.
>

When you say "real expressiveness" vs. "close to useless" expressiveness,
how should I reconcile this? Is there a use case for this
expressiveness/feature so we can better judge its value?

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:53:14 GMT

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