W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels

From: Stanton, John <StantonJ@ncr.disa.mil>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:03:07 -0500
Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D0218DB35@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil>
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Is there any W3C guidance on conformance statements?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:03 AM
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk; www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels



From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:23:12 +0100

> I wrote:
> > Reasoning components MAY claim "most of OWL DL reasoning" if
> > they provide at
> > least OWL Lite reasoning and ... [tbd] (e.g. pass 90% of the tests).
> 
> I heard:
> 90% is a very bad idea.
> 
> I didn't hear alternatives for the [tbd] ...
> 
> Suggestions please.

Here is my VERY STRONG (i.e., can't live without) suggestion:

	Remove the entire idea of supporting a claim of "most of OWL DL
	reasoning".

Even further, I strongly believe that there is no place in the OWL
conformance definitions for anything like "most" or "almost all" or "some".

[...]

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 11:03:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT