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

Re: Proposed response to Graham Klyne

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:28:05 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0306201424410.2352-100000@potato>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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.

Ok. I'm happy with the c.f. but with the above clause removed.



Sean Bechhofer
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 09:29:26 GMT

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