- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:01:27 +0000
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Alan Wu wrote: > Oracle would love very much to say that Oracle is fully **** compliant! > where I took **** to be a label of OWL compliance, to be defined (hopefully by this WG). HP would love to have such a label that fitted better what the Jena reasoner does. i.e. in the fragments work, one of HP's clearest goals (which I personally have not yet considered in detail), is that an OWL fragment should be identified that: a) has widespread support (Oracle's would certainly be important) b) Jena can support (possibly with some additional work; but essentially by prdocuing an appropriate rule set) c) it is sufficiently efficient that it makes a sensible default setting for the reasoner. d) users can understand what it will, and it won't do. Last, and probably least, would be that the capabilities had some intelligible rationale at a more academic level. [Of course, such a rationale is likely to lead to objectives a+b+c+d more easily] Jeremy
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 14:01:59 UTC