W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: PR/CR Page

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:57:50 +0200
To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Charles White" <Charles.White@networkinference.com>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0CFD626B.BDB565ED-ONC1256D6B.0070FB93-C1256D6B.0078A619@agfa.be>




Jim Hendler wrote:
>At 12:05 AM +0100 7/22/03, Charles White wrote:
>>At the bottom of the PR/CR page, the following showed up recently.
>>
>>Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria
>>
>>integrate any changes to RDF Core specs
>>2 complete OWL Lite consistency checkers (i.e. 2 which pass all OWL
>>Lite consistency and inconsistency tests and moreover claim logical
>>completeness)
>>at least one reasoner passes every test that is not an extra credit test
>>two reasoners implementing (different) substantial subsets of OWL DL
>>two reasoners implementing useful subsets of OWL Full
>>two owl syntax checkers passing all tests
>>
>>Did we ever agree to this? I remember seeing this in a message from
>>Jeremy Carroll, et al, but I don't think it was ever agreed upon by
>>the group. Or did I miss something? I looked in the minutes and
>>didn't see any evidence of it. I thought we had agreed that it was
>>not necessary (although possibly desirable) to have all these tools
>>built before recommendation.
>>
>>chas
>
>
>Charles - the issue of what the exit criteria are is one of the
>things to be discussed on Thursday.  Jeremy is the only one who has
>proposed explicit criteria, and those are what we based this on.  It
>is worth noting that Dan and I went through these and believe that it
>will be  possible to complete these in 4-6 weeks, so we think they
>are reasonable.  Here is why I (note I say I and not we) think that:

O good; that's still a reasonable time to work it out ;-)

>1 - 2 complete OWL Lite consistency checkers - this is not that
>difficult to do, the algorithms for this subset of DL are relatively
>well-known and implementations don't seem to be that hard.  The
>University of Maryland PELLET prover and NI's Cerebra will likely
>meet this need in the near future.

I think it's hard (work) ;-)
Needless to remark that they should pass *ALL* of the 20 Lite
ConsistencyTest's (plus some other 60 Lite documents in Test)
and 28 Lite InconsistencyTest's in Test (as you said "complete").

>2 - one reasoner that passes every test that is not extra credit -
>this one is the one I'm personally most willing to take out - in part
>because the definition of passes every test is a bit slippery -- if
>we accept Jos' definitions, than Euler is quite close to meeting this
>criterion - if we don't, then I would argue we might rephrase this to
>passes every entailment test (axiomatic reasoners cannot necessarily
>pass the consistency tests)

Well, you have good reason to doubt about those definitions ;-)
(at least they are not what's in Test).
The tests we ran in Manchester were using a simililar PASS/FAIL
criterium, but then we had the discussions at the same meeting
and I took out the running of NegativeEntailmentTest's and
ConsistencyTest's (also from a constructivists point of view it
is *not* the case that noNoProofFound is the same as proofFound).
Now here we have to run tests such as an InconsistencyTest or a
ConsistencyTest, and they either PASS or they FAIL (I don't see
any benefit in UNKNOWN as that just shifts the problem).
It's a different situation when a document is given to a checker
and the checker has to return CONSISTENT, INCONSISTENT or UNKNOWN.

>3 - two reasoners implementing (different) substantial subsets of OWL
>DL: I believe we already have these between FACT, Cerebra, and
>VAMPIRE.
>4 - two reasoners implementing useful subsets of OWL Full - I think
>we have this in Euler and cwm/Otter if the latter is made to attempt
>our tests.  If not, several other axiomatic systems are under
>development that are likely to pass many of the Full tests.
>5 - two owl syntax checkers passing all tests - I believe Sean has
>completed one of these, and I expect my group to have one by end of
>August - I think there are other groups, including the Jena group,
>working on this as well.
>
>So, while I'd be willing to see these slightly loosened (for example,
>I might prefer "a large majority of tests" instead of "every test"),
>I think we could actually meet these criteria by the end of the
>proposed CR (dates to be established, but Dan and I believe mid-Sept
>should be our target - more on that in a later message)

OK

>WG - this would be a good thing to discuss before Thurs on the
>mailing list -- Chas, do you have a suggestion for an alternative?
>
>  -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          *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
>http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 18:01:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT