Reminder, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments is a good place to include these sorts of requirements, etc. (Jeremy, +1 !) On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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 > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 19:00:07 UTC