Re: QCRs - How much time are they worth?

Jim,


On April 28, Jim Hendler writes:
> 
> WOWGers-
> 
> Summary:  Adding QCRs to OWL is likely to add 3-4 MONTHS to the time 
> until we move OWL to PR.  Are they worth it?  What is an alternative?

[snip]

> Alternative:
> 
>    Since OWL DL is SHIQ (maybe SHIOQ) we know QCRs are in our current 
> semantic coverage.

I'm afraid that this isn't true. Since we dropped QCRs, OWL DL is only
SHION(D+) (the (D+) referring to datatypes), so we don't cover QCRs.

Having said that, I am no more keen on a 3-4 month delay than you
are. As an alternative, might it be possible to gather together
sensible proposals from the LC process with a view to an early release
of OWL 1.01, or some such?

Hopefully we can discuss this issue on Thursday.

Ian


>  This means that we should be able to develop an 
> idiom within our current language to handle them (even if it means 
> creating extra classes).  We have talked often about the need for an 
> idioms page.  We could create that page, and make a recommendation 
> for how to handle QCRs be one of the entries on that page.  We could 
> have Guide, Ref and Features (non-normative documents) point at that 
> page and have discussion of a recommendation for QCRs.
>   Note that this is consistent with past practice of our WG, within 
> W3C process, and would not add any delay to OWL release.
> 
> Proposal:
>   I propose we change the closing status of issue 3.2 to POSTPONED. 
> We create the idioms page and a discussion of QCRs go there.  A 
> pointer to that discussion is added to the issues page, and can be 
> referred to in our non-normative documents if desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 15:27:21 UTC