- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:53:13 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Sep 2008, at 14:34, Ivan Herman wrote: > Ian Horrocks wrote: >>> >>> Just for my understanding: what would that require for an >>> implementation? Would it mean that the RDF graph has to be converted >>> into the functional syntax and check against RDF-RL? >> >> That is how it is *defined*, but tools are free to *implement* it >> in any >> way they choose -- it might be possible, e.g., to implement checks >> that >> operate directly on the RDF graph. > > Sure, but that would not make it simpler. The huge advantage of the > OWL-RL is that it can be implemented (o.k., with scruffy edges here > and > there) in an afternoon on top of an existing RDF environment. Actually, this is true for all the profiles and maybe a week for OWL DL. Whether these implementations would be *production quality* is an interesting question (the OWL DL one, definitely not :)). I have to say that catering to the "implement in an afternoon" base probably isn't really sensible. After all, you can implement (most of) it in an afternoon either way. > Such an > extra 'must' check would make it way more complicated. Hence my > preference of leaving it as a 'may' Technically, I think they could claim conformance by providing a separate check tool, such as will soon be freely available both for download/distribution and as a web service :) Is there anything wrong with "SHOULD" here? I think it ought to be encouraged, at the very least. A reasonable argument for violating the should could be "too great performance impact". Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 13:50:44 UTC