Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80)

Alan Wu wrote:

> Oracle would love very much to say that Oracle is fully **** compliant!
> 

where I took **** to be a label of OWL compliance, to be defined 
(hopefully by this WG).

HP would love to have such a label that fitted better what the Jena 
reasoner does.

i.e. in the fragments work, one of HP's clearest goals (which I 
personally have not yet considered in detail), is that an OWL fragment 
should be identified that:

a) has widespread support (Oracle's would certainly be important)
b) Jena can support (possibly with some additional work; but essentially 
by prdocuing an appropriate rule set)
c) it is sufficiently efficient that it makes a sensible default setting 
for the reasoner.
d) users can understand what it will, and it won't do.

Last, and probably least, would be that the capabilities had some 
intelligible rationale at a more academic level.
[Of course, such a rationale is likely to lead to objectives a+b+c+d 
more easily]

Jeremy