Re: yet another non-entailment

Just a couple of things that I want to throw in as chair - I find the 
current discussion constructive and don't want to stop it
  1) The group has resolved that the normative exchange syntax for OWL 
documents is RDF/XML, and our test cases should thus be in that 
syntax. Although some might prefer N3, Ntriples, Guus' UML, 
XML-schema or the new abstract syntax, each of these is mappable to 
the RDF/XML and thus I strongly suggest we use RDF/XML as the test 
format
  2)  While in principle I think we definitely need some entailment 
tests, unless I misunderstand my math, the possible set of all 
entailment tests we could need is infinite and enumerating even the 
set of types to try could take a very long time.  Thus, I would ask 
Jeremy, Peter and anyone else interested to consider how best to 
bound the test set -- as far as I can tell, in the past the WG has 
discussed the Test cases being tied to open issues and the specific 
language features in Mike's document.

  Bother of these are probably best controlled by having someone 
(Jeremy in this case) be the "editor" of the TEST case document, and 
make editorial decisions that, like all others in the WG, can be 
questioned by WG members on telecons and f2fs prior to any release
  Remember the test cases are an important part of our getting through 
last call and candidate rec.  From this chair's point of view, a 
limited and focused test set is preferable to an open and 
comprehensive one -- the latter can be added and the test case base 
extended as part of the future evolution of the language - but for 
now focus on issues and language should keep us PLENTY busy.
  -JH

-- 
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	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 17:09:20 UTC