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.

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.

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 20:40:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:53 UTC