- From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:02:13 -0700
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20030715160150.02668e88@tnt.isi.edu>
This decision is acceptable to me. - Bob At 01:53 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote: >Dear Bob- > Thank you for your comment, the working group has considered it > carefully. With respect to qualified keys, we considered how this could > be added to OWL - see the discussion thread starting at [1] and > particularly [2]. The group considered the addition of Qualified > Cardinality Restrictions, which we believe are needed to implement the > sort of global keys you need. However, the WG decided to postpone the > issue of QCRs as discussed in my response to Alan Rector at [3]. > We also considered the issue of Compound Keys. We decided this was an > important enough area to open an issue on our issues list explicitly. We > did not, however, come up with a solution as to how to address > these. Instead we also decided to postpone this issue. The issue text is: > >>TITLE: Compound Keys >>DESCRIPTION: >> Relational Databases often use keys that are composed of multiple >> fields. OWL allows keys using owl:InverseFunctionalProperty for a >> single field (property). It would be desirable for OWL to provide the >> compound keys capability as well. >>STATUS: POSTPONED >>RAISED BY: J. Hendler based on a Last Call comment raised by Bob >>MacGregor: >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0019.html >> >>Closing Comments: >> >>While compounds keys would be desirable to add, there is some difficulty >>in adding them in the current OWL syntax, similar to the problem arising >>for "qualified" properties (see discussion under issue 3.2). In >>addition, for the OWL DL profile, it is still something of a research >>issue (c.f. >>http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~calvanes/papers-html/DL-2000.html) as to how >>these are best realized by DL reasoners. There is also a question as to >>whether mixing datatype and object type in a compound key would be >>allowed, and whether it would cause difficulties to reasoners. > > >Please let us know if this decision to (a) acknowledge that our >design is lacking, but (b) postpone further design work to a future >version is acceptable. > -Jim Hendler > > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0064.html >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0085.html >[3] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0024.html > > >-- >Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu >Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 >Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) >Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) >http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER *** ===================================== Robert MacGregor Senior Project Leader macgregor@isi.edu Phone: 310/448-8423, Fax: 310/822-6592 Mobile: 310/251-8488 USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292 =====================================
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:02:20 UTC