- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:34:00 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > Mike Smith and I have started gathering information about existing > datatype (i.e., unary datapredicate) support in reasoners. We're > soliciting reasoner authors to fill in the following matrix: > http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTmcCXR-dV6RpTEPxB0O-DQ > > One thing we might consider is making some of the odder datatype > optional, e.g., Name and NCName. Similarly, we might be more explicit > about what facets are applicable, or, again, make some facets optional. If a reasoner supports string and supports the facets with which Name and/or NCName are defined, then it should be strongly encouraged to support these. I tend to agree that they are not useful for typical semantic web apps, but in as much as the W3C should form a coherent whole, we should encourage SemWeb implementators to not wilfully not implement a part of some other spec. > > This matrix could help drive test case generation as well. > > We don't collect inline vs. external datatype support. AFAIK, only > Pellet supports pointers into XML Schema documents. I'd welcome > correction on this point! Jena supports this too; I wouldn't be surprised if the Pellet support depends on the Jena support. > > I don't think it's as interesting to gather data about editors because > it's much more trivial and it's pretty uninteresting to enumerate the > builtin types "supported" by an editor. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > P.S. We used a Google spreadsheet since 1) it's a heck of a lot easier > to manage than wikisyntax table and 2) we want reasoner authors who > aren't WG members to enter their own data :) We can always export and > script transform. What about people without a google account? Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 17:34:37 UTC