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

Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <16066.36870.616684.348833@excalibur.oaklands.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

On May 14, Dan Connolly writes:
> 
> On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 07:11, Jim Hendler wrote:
> > I 
> > therefore suggest that editing Ref and Guide to set expectations is 
> > the correct solution - consistent w/WG decisions in the past.
> 
> Sounds workable...
> 
> But I wonder about test too...
> 
> 
> > At 8:44 AM +0300 5/14/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > >In January, we agreed a definition of a "complete OWL DL consistency checker",
> > >if we had evidence that such a thing existed, and/or that more than one would
> > >exist in the future (and the WG was satisfied that they would be practically
> > >usable, rather than essentially theoretical exercises) then we could respond
> > >with a message that indicated that, and that we thought that that was
> > >sufficient to justify the DL level.
> 
> I too wonder if the "complete OWL DL consistency checker" conformance
> clause sets reasonable expectations. I'm very unlikely to
> put my name on a request for Proposed Recommendation with
> (a) a spec with such a conformance clause in it, but (b) no
> such piece of software available.

We could add some words making it clear that we don't know how to
build one at the moment (or at least not a "practical" one).

Ian

> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:15:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT