- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 20:40:12 -0400
- To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Guus Schreiber wrote: ... > > 3. The evidence on whether users need this is mixed. Rector's use cases > are compelling, but Protege (which has a large user community) has > not reported user requests for this feature. > > 4. Inclusion of this feature will put additional burden on > implementations. For example, it is nontrivial to add this to > Protege. > Yet: http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/DAML+OIL-plugin/daml.htm#QualifiedRestrictions claims to support QCRs. Furthermore even if any particular piece of software *doesn't* intend to support QCRs, are these software packages intended to support OWL DL vs. OWL Lite -- I'd assumed that QCRs would not be a part of OWL Lite -- are folks suggesting otherwise? > The Working Group therefore POSTPONES the full treatment of QCRs, > while considering possibilities for making idioms or other guidelines > for QCRs available to the community. > Given the above, the arguments for postponing seem diminished -- it does appear that QCRs *have* been implemented as a part of DAML+OIL -- contrary to what we have been led to believe. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 20:40:57 UTC