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

Re: CR Exit Criteria

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 18:47:43 +0100
Message-Id: <F494E017-4112-4847-AC83-5601473C8420@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Yet another re-working of the exit criteria is now available in the  
usual place [1]. As well as adding the improved "at risk" text, it  
also separates the Full, DL and Profiles cases a little more clearly.  
For Full I now have:

"At least two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment  
checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and passing a useful  
subset of the non-DL test cases. "

No doubt you will let me know if you don't like this formulation.

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria


On 23 May 2009, at 04:33, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider <
>> pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: CR Exit Criteria
>>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:04:44 -0500
>>>
>>>> On 21 May 2009, at 00:53, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> We agreed to make it "at risk" in the spec, so we should mention it
>>>> here. I added "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and  
>>>> may be
>>>> removed from the OWL 2 specification."
>>>
>>> Umm, if rdf:text goes away OWL 2 needs something to replace it  
>>> with, so
>>> I think that the wording should be something like
>>>
>>> "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be replaced  
>>> with a
>>> datatype with name owl:text that serves the same purpose.
>>> Implementations will be able to switch to owl:text by simply  
>>> replacing
>>> occurences of rdf:text with owl:text."
>>
>>
>> There are other alternatives. At the moment, for instance, there is
>> discussion of using the name rdf:plainLiteral. I suggest something  
>> more
>> along the lines:
>>
>> "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be renamed,  
>> replaced, or
>> have technical details modified as a result of ongoing work of the  
>> joint
>> OWL/RIF working group determining its specification."
>
> +1  I was going to say that.
>
>       -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 17:48:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 May 2009 17:48:28 GMT