- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:42:29 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, alanruttenberg@gmail.com
On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Hendler wrote: > I remind you all that the WG reopened the case of QCRs due to Alan > Rector's comments. At that point we found no concrete syntaxfor > which there was a consensus and we chose to POSTPONE the issue - I > don't see that the situation has changed - if the OWL 1.0 WG felt > that the DAML solution was appropriate we certainly would have > chosen to add it when we reopened the issue. We didn't We aren't bound by past WG rationale. Had I been a member at the time, I would not have agreed with the decision or, esp., the rationale. > - and I don't see what has changed -- there's still very few users > demanding it, [snip] It is one of the more requested features I get...often mentioned as a deal breaker by significant customers. It is supported by all four major reasoners (Racer, KAON2, Pellet, and FaCT++) and major editors. (Inadequate) Workarounds for their lack was subject of a SWBP note. There was a syntax extension developed by protege3 folks to handle them. It was a key motivation for OWL 1.1 and had strong consensus at all OWLEDs. It's lack is often mentioned to me by people as clear examples of OWL being *broken*. We should handle it if only to help with interop. As for confusing syntax...try working with the (incorrect) workaround some time: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/ It would be helpful if you were more specific when you say things like "few users demanding it", e.g., "few users are demanding it *of me*" or "I know of few users who are demanding it, though clearly it has vocal support from significant users". Clearly, enough users have requested it that it was 1) put into the spec and 2) implemented. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 14:42:51 UTC