Re: OWL S&AS: Translation to RDF Graphs

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:39:54 -0500
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 09:32, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2003 22:43:18 -0500
> > Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Please let us know if you find this response satisfactory.
> > 
> > 
> > No I do not.
> 
> I see.
> 
> As you may be aware, the Working Group has requested CR status,
> noting your oustanding dissent
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/rqim.html
>   $Revision: 1.41 $ of $Date: 2003/07/30 23:09:12 $
> 
> Regarding this part of your message...
> 
> > Maybe you do have multiple interoperable implementations of the
> > mapping from OWL's concrete syntax (RDF triples) to OWL's abstract
> > syntax and I am just unaware of them.  If that is the case, then I
> > would be more satisfied.
> 
> The WG has identified part of what makes the mapping complicated
> (constraints that rule out structure sharing, cycles), discussed
> a way to remove those constraints, and asked that this part
> of the spec be designated "at risk" during CR. ...

This is interesting - I had read the "feature at risk" section in an
earlier draft of rqim but had not made that connection.  Maybe you could
record this under the "5.26-OWL DL Syntax" issue.

> ... We have also
> accepted an exit criterion to exhibit "two owl syntax checkers
> passing all tests".

Reading http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#syntaxChecker
Yes, this seems the right condition to test.

> The Director is interested to know if moving to CR this
> way would be a satisfactory response to your comments.

If this CR exit criterion is accepted - two such OWL syntax checkers
both passing 100% of the tests - it would satisfy my concern.

Thanks

Dave