RE: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite

> From: Jim Hendler [] 
> but OWL DL is in the NExpTime class - right?  And there are 
> implementations for that - so it's not like adding hasValue makes OWL 
> Lite unimplementable.

There are?  Could you point me to one, please?  I want to buy it.

I have seen an implementation of SHIQ(D) that behaves reasonably.
I have seen an implementation of SHOQ(D) that behaves reasonably.

I have seen no implementation of SHIOQ(D) - i.e. OWL-DL that behaves
reasonably in the presence of both inverse roles and instances.

> My argument is simple - the hasValue is easily 
> dealt with compared to some other features of OWL DL (particularly 
> conjunctions and disjunctions of unnamed class constructs).  I think 
> OWL Lite is already harder than I would like it to be, but this 
> feature is not worse than not having it to those of us who want to 
> use this langauge subset (which, as I understand it, doesn't include 
> you).

Hmm.  Repeated and sustained argument for one point of view from the
Chair on an issue that will come to a vote.  Whatever happened to
Chair's impartiality per W3C Process?  Dan - just on the off chance that
this partiality could be seen as trying to influence the vote, what
would Network Inference do to make a formal complaint about this abuse
of Professor Hendler's position as Chair?

		- Peter

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 09:32:53 UTC