W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:53:32 +0100
Message-Id: <14356A5A-36F5-41AF-83F1-0B253F4269EA@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 3 Sep 2008, at 15:41, Ivan Herman wrote:
[snip]
> O.k. I was not precise. By 'Implement in an afternoon' I meant for
> somebody who does not really know much more than having good  
> programming
> skills and knowing how to use some sort of an RDF environment. I do  
> not
> believe that would be true for OWL DL, EL++ or DL Lite, which do  
> require
> a knowledge of DL algorithms that most mortals do not have (I  
> certainly
> don't). For that to be acquired is probably more than a week...

I don't think so. EL++ and DL Lite have very straightforward, easy to  
understand algorithms. Why would you think they are any harder to  
understand than a set of rules?

> Anyway. The issue is that implementing OWL-RL/RDF is very easy, way
> easier than the others. Can we agree on that?

I don't believe it's true, necessarily. And it really depends on what  
quality of implementation you're talking about. For example, it's not  
at all clear to me that dropping those rules into a Prolog system  
(like SWI Prolog) will "just work". I'd be very surprised if it did,  
in fact.

>>>  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".
>
> ... which is a relative notion to the rest of the tool to be
> implemented.

Yes, and? Obviously "should" overriding is circumstance dependent.

> And I fear this is the case here.

Here where? What? What's wrong with the using some other component?  
Or even a set of drop in rules?

Why not try implementing such a thing and seeing how hard it is? I  
mean, you just need some rules which trigger when you have a  
violation, right?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 14:51:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 September 2008 14:51:03 GMT