W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Issue 3.2 QCR: proposal to POSTPONE

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 20:40:12 -0400
Message-ID: <02d801c314fa$65f9b8f0$b6f5d3ce@L565>
To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Guus Schreiber wrote:
...
>
> 3. The evidence on whether users need this is mixed. Rector's use cases
>     are compelling, but Protege (which has a large user community) has
>     not reported user requests for this feature.
>
> 4. Inclusion of this feature will put additional burden on
>     implementations. For example, it is nontrivial to add this to
>     Protege.
>

Yet:
http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/DAML+OIL-plugin/daml.htm#QualifiedRestrictions
claims to support QCRs.

Furthermore even if any particular piece of software *doesn't* intend to
support QCRs, are these software packages intended to support OWL DL vs. OWL
Lite -- I'd assumed that QCRs would not be a part of OWL Lite -- are folks
suggesting otherwise?

> The Working Group therefore POSTPONES the full treatment of QCRs,
> while considering possibilities for making idioms or other guidelines
> for QCRs available to the community.
>

Given the above, the arguments for postponing seem diminished -- it does
appear that QCRs *have* been implemented as a part of DAML+OIL -- contrary
to what we have been led to believe.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 20:40:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT