- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:00:53 -0500
- To: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Cc: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, bonatti@na.infn.it, edbark@nist.gov
On Feb 12, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Igor Mozetic wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: > >>> Shouldn't be OWL added to the list as well? >> >> Which species of OWL? > > I had OWL-DL in mind. > >>> In general, it seems that IETF process of accepting Internet >>> standards/RFCs (the requirement for prior implementation and testing) >>> works well. >> >> >> The W3C has a similar requirement. The CR (candidate recommendation) >> phase is where you are required to gather implementation experience of >> the complete design. Hence, while designing, you look for current >> implementation experience in anticipation of the CR. This was, in >> fact, >> done for OWL, esp. the DL fragment. My organization (the MIND Lab) >> started our OWL DL ++ reasoner Pellet specifically to show that >> traditional tableau reasoners were not *that* difficult to implement >> (i.e., there had been some concern in the WebOnt group that only >> people >> deep in the DL community could do it; not so). > > So, according to the above, is my understanding correct that Pellet > fully supports OWL-DL? Yes. As does FaCT++. At the time of CR, the full (goal directed) algorithm for SHOIN wasn't known, so we supported as much as we knew how to do (SHIN, SHON, SHIO all with aboxes). > Or is it just a demo, that it *could* be implemented? It started as proof-of-implementabilty implementation. It has evolved into a practical tool. All that is a bit irrelevant to the point at hand which was to point out that the W3C already has implementability requirements. However, we, to a certain extent, get to decide what that means. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 06:01:07 UTC