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

Re: CR Exit Criteria

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 22:11:00 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0905231911r498037bchc63a38efce473f19@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, sandro@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I suggest something more should be said about the disposition of
> rdf:text.
> As things stand, what is an implementor supposed to do?
> This might be as generic as
>        The changes to the functionality provided by rdf:text will
>        require minimal changes to implementations.

I'm not sure how this helps, and I can see it being more of a
liability than anything. Given that it's hard to interpret what
"minimal changes" means, and that we haven't yet come to the final
shape of the solution, I worry that any changes could lead to
unnecessary, and not easily resolvable, complaints. If we want to give
more information I suggest it would be a pointer to the mailing list
so that implementors make their own judgements.


> peter
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: CR Exit Criteria
> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 12:47:43 -0500
>> 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
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 02:12:00 UTC

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