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

Re: Proposed response to Graham Klyne

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:17:08 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f09bb18b97743e8@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 10:14 AM +0100 6/20/03, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>  I'm okay with this one except for one thing -- you have
>>
>>  At 5:57 PM +0100 6/19/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>  >This document only provides definitions of various parts of OWL.  Turning
>>  >these definitions into effective procedures is a task for implementors.
>>
>>  which is begging for someone to say "you need a long CR for this" --
>>  however, our web page has a pointer to Sean's validator which proves
>>  this can be implemented - so why don't we say
>>
>>  "This document only provides definitions of various parts of OWL.  Turning
>>  these definitions into effective procedures is a task for
>>  implementors (c.f.the OWL Species Validator, available from the WG
>>  web page or at [5]), which is such an implementation).
>>
>>
>>  [5] http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator"
>
>As anyone who knows me will confirm, I'm always the first to diss my own
>implementations. Having said that, In this case I am a little wary of
>using this as a justification here (if that is in fact what is happening).
>I'm *pretty sure* I'm getting most of my implementation "right", but it
>would not at all surprise me if there are places where it's a little
>flaky, (for example in areas like imports or data ranges, should anyone
>wish to probe it :-).
>
>I would agree that it shows that one can make a good stab at implementing
>a parser (where I mean here something that turns the RDF into some other
>structure and tries to do some validation on the way), but I wouldn't
>claim that it shows I know how to tackle the whole language.
>
>This is perhaps nit-picking, but I don't want it to appear like *I'm*
>claiming I've built a 100% correct OWL validator. Because I don't think I
>have (yet :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>	Sean

Fair enough, although I still think it is okay as stated above, If 
you prefer, we could take out the "which is such an implementation" 
and just leave the "c.f" meaning they can look at that as one sort of 
possible example.  I just want to insulate us a bit from a follow on 
which claims such an implementation would be impossible.



-- 
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 Friday, 20 June 2003 09:17:16 GMT

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