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

Reminder, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments is a good place  
to include these sorts of requirements, etc.  (Jeremy, +1 !)

On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> 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
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180