- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:48:09 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <mdean@bbn.com>
Jeremy, ... > > My understanding is that the qualified ones are in DAML+OIL because they > were free to implement. i.e. the additional cost of implementing them over > the unqualified ones was trivial. > > I think that they do add real expressiveness to the language. > The case against them is that even if that expressiveness is free to > implement, it costs learners, documentors, ontology designers etc. > Given that the particular expressiveness is close to useless, then a > cost-benefit analysis suggests it goes. > When you say "real expressiveness" vs. "close to useless" expressiveness, how should I reconcile this? Is there a use case for this expressiveness/feature so we can better judge its value? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:53:14 UTC