W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

CR Exit Criteria

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:53:03 -0400
Message-ID: <20090520.195303.123227040.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I've copied the current CR Exit Criteria here so that my changes can be
more easily discussed in email.    

I think that these criteria are very close to suitable.

My comments are on lines starting with >


The goal of the CR phase is to demonstrate the existence of multiple
interoperable and practically useful OWL 2 systems. As a minimum, the WG
suggest that the following conditions should be met.

1. Resolve dependencies on rdf:text (currently at Last Call) and XSD
   1.1 Datatypes (currently at Candidate Recommendation).
> or put rdf:text as risk as described in previous email

2. Two different implementations of each of the following:
* An OWL 2 DL entailment checker
* An OWL 2 EL entailment checker that takes advantage of some
  of the claimed benefits of the EL profile
* An OWL 2 QL entailment checker that takes advantage of some
  of the claimed benefits of the QL profile
* An OWL 2 RL entailment checker that takes advantage of some
  of the claimed benefits of the RL profile 

> The benefits appear to me to be the ones applicable to implementations
> in the profile's preamble in Profiles, including
> EL - good scaling, polynomial time
> QL - LOGSPACE data complexity, SQL rewriting, 
> RL - RDFS++ implemenation, rule-based implementation
> I'm not suggesting that the benefits be listed in the exit criteria,
> but it might be a good idea to say that they are listed in Profiles at
> the start of each profile's section.

> For EL, QL, and RL I think that there should only be a need for two
> different implementations, with at least one taking advantage of the
> profile's benefits.

3. Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker
   implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and taking advantage of at
   least some of the claimed benefits of OWL 2 Full†

> I'm having a bit of a problem finding where these benefits are listed.
> I suppose that they could include full upward semantic compatability
> with RDFS, which would give rise to the option below.

4. For each of the standard OWL DL test cases, at least two
   implementations that pass the test and which claim to be conformant
   OWL 2 DL entailment checkers 

Note: Some of these criteria depend on the OWL 2 test suite, which is
expected to continue to evolve. For the purposes of these criteria, we
will only consider "Approved" tests which are not "Extra-Credit", and
which were approved before some cut-off date, to be determined later,
some time during CR.

† Another option here would be to make this last phrase more test
oriented, e.g., "and passing at least some of the non-DL test cases" 

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 23:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC