W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Jena implementation report plans

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:06:33 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f16bb82f383d448@[10.0.1.4]>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-archive@w3.org

At 10:50 AM +0100 9/8/03, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>[Not to the list since I assume I shouldn't be posting there myself.]

how about moving it to public-webont-comments or at least cc'ing 
www-archives (like this) -- be nice to have this discussion in a 
logged place --  however Dave, you're welcome to continue this on the 
webont list so we can keep a single strand of discussion
  -JH

>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>>  I don't understand this distinction.  Why cannot the first formulation also
>>  be trivially mechanically translated into a query for an RDF API in exactly
>>  the same way that the second can?
>
>It can be, but only if all the comprehension inferences are enabled. 
>There are some issues with that for a triple interface.
>
>>  Given that I don't see any significant difference between the two
>>  formulations aside from the need for comprehension inferences in the
>>  first I don't see any benefit here apart from a test for comprehension
>>  inferences.
>
>That is the suggested benefit - separating tests of the 
>comprehension inferences from tests of the other inferences.
>
>Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
>>  Even adding duplicate easier versions of tests seems to be
>>  misguided. If we want to "encourage" implementors, we could simply add
>>  lots of trivial tests that everyone can easily pass (just to be clear,
>>  I am not suggesting this!). And where does this end - do we add
>>  multiple versions of every test, each carefully tuned so that it can
>>  be passed by a given implementation?
>
>That's a fair concern.
>
>It does seem likely that there will be quite a few implementions of 
>non-identical non-lite/dl subsets of OWL/Full and having a 
>sufficient spectrum of tests to enable developers to compare such 
>subsets could be useful. In particular, people coming to this from 
>the RDF world will be expecting that RDFS inferences and free use of 
>RDF (e.g. use of bNodes) will remain possible - this will 
>immediately place them in this "non-lite/dl subset of OWL/full" 
>category. Limiting the comprehension inferences is, possibly, one 
>way that some implementors of this category might moderate the 
>unboundedness of OWL/full.
>
>This was intended as a constructive suggestion and I certainly don't 
>want to undermine the tests in any way - I'll accept whatever the 
>working group consensus is.
>
>Dave

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 23:06:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:36 GMT