ISSUE-38 (QCRs): REPORTED: 3.2 Qualified Restrictions

ISSUE-38 (QCRs): REPORTED: 3.2 Qualified Restrictions

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
On product: 

3.2 Qualified Restrictions

Qualified restrictions (cardinalityQ, etc.). This feature of DAML+OIL wasn't accounted for when developing requirements.

Proposed resolution by Jeremy Carrol on 19 Apr 2002. See also Jeremy Carrol email of 24 Apr 2002. See resolution below.

Reopened due to request from reviewers. See 1 May 2003 teleconference minutes.
Name  I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions
Raised By  Mike Dean e-mail.
Date 8 May 2003.
Status Postponed
Owner Jonathan Borden
Resolution  

The Working Group decided 25 Apr 2002 to remove qualified cardinality constraints. The issue was reopened due to new information Apr 2003 from Alan Rector. In the 8 May 2003 teleconference, the WG resolved

    ... to POSTPONE this issue for the following reasons:

        * OWL already contains one QCR construct: owl:someValuesFrom (QCR with minimal cardinality of 1) which covers some frequent-occurring cases of QCRs.
        * There are some workarounds for QCRs, using the rdfs:subPropertyOf construct. These can be used in simple cases, such as the example in the Guide below. The WG agrees that these workarounds are more problematic for complex part-of relations such as pointed out by Alan Rector in his use cases a) and b).
        * 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.
        * Inclusion of this feature will put additional burden on implementations. For example, it is nontrivial to add this to Protege. 

    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.

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 08:39:08 UTC