Re: Issue 3.2 QCR: proposal to POSTPONE

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.

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.


Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 20:40:57 UTC