- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:31:11 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > As issue owner, since I believe I have heard consensus, I now summarise that > consensus and propose a resolution. > > Summary of consensus > ==================== > At the face2face no one wished to include qualified restrictions in OWL. Um. I'm not entirely happy with this summary for the following reasons: 1) The charter at least suggests that we use DAML+OIL with changes if there are good reasons for doing so. There should be some burden of at least explaning why a change is being proposed. e.g. - I assume the cardinality Q constraints were put into DAML+OIL for a good reason. Why? - What are the problems caused by these constraints? - Are they simply syntactic sugar? - If they are simply syntactic sugar, which is what I thought was the explanation of why they might be dropped, then we should have a lower burden for dropping them. On the other hand, if they are other than syntactic sugar, we should have a higher burden as this will change DAML+OIL in other than a merely cosmetic fashion. 2) Mike Dean had already raised another issue [3.2 Qualified Restrictions]. How is this issue different from the issue at hand? I presume Mike has a desire for qualified restrictions, otherwise why was that issue raised. At the very least we should hear what Mike et al. have to say before closing the issue. 3) I thought that at the F2F we were trying to come to a compromise on a single OWL language. It seems that lots of folks were unhappy on both sides of the compromise. I though the Q restrictions were 'dropped' as part of this compromise process. Since we have decided to have two conformance levels, what are the problems having something very much like DAML+OIL at the full level. Note: the issues with usability look to me like they will need to be resolved at the 'presentation syntax' level. > > Proposed Resolution > =================== > > I propose that the WG > - decides that the qualified restrictions of DAML+OIL are not part of OWL. > - approves the test cases of > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0126.html > as reflecting this decision. > - closes the unmentioned-qualified-restrictions issue. > > > If there is anyone who believes they should be part of OWL, please respond > to this message - ideally arguing for retaining them. > I think this issue deserves at the very least a written explanation for the archives. The minutes of the F2F do not have such an explanation. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 13:36:16 UTC