Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

Hi,

> >
> >         So we need to figure out what evidence will help us figure out
> > who's more right. (I don't think there is a clear, unchallangable
> > "right" here, but many factors to be weighed.[skip]
> >
>
> We may decide to leave things as they are, put an editor's note into 
> the  document about the possible change and publish a new Working 
> Draft with that additional note, asking for explicit feedback from the 
> community. That is what the public review process is made for...
>
> Ivan
>
Given the fact that there has been so much debate on this topic, I think 
Ivan's suggestion is very good and
it is going to be very helpful to seek feedback from the community.

> B.t.w, there seems to be a side issue of Boris' proposal that affects
> implementations, too. If I want to be really compliant OWL-R in the
> proposed new approach, I am supposed to implement the check, just as you
> describe above. While I could (and I did) implement OWL-R-Full easily
> and quickly on top of an existing RDF environment, doing the backward
> mapping to functional syntax and check the result against OWL-R-DL is a
> non-trivial extra work on implementers...
>
I agree with this extra-work argument from an implementer's perspective.

Cheers,

Zhe