- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:08:35 -0400
- To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote: > I must admit that upon re-reading the UC&R doc I am a bit surprised that > disjunction has fallen off the radar. I certainly think users like being > able to form arbitrary boolean constructions. FWIW, I was just thinking this today! Along the lines, "don't we need disjunction as an explicit requirement?" I don't know how or why disjunction use cases fell out of the doc; maybe this is one of those many mistakes I've made, but if so, it was totally unwitting. In other words, I think that disjunction should be an explicit requirement about disjunction, and I would be happy to help someone craft a use case that motivates it. > actually getting the benefit of the new system. If features like > disjunction are so rarely useful, then I fear a lot of us have wasted a > lot of time defining whole new languages like OWL and SWRL for > expressing things that are even more esoteric! I don't think that's the case at all -- rather, I think that disjunction just fell off the map. Let's get it back on. Best, Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 21:10:29 UTC