- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:00:55 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
From our discussion at yesterday's teleconf [1] I gathered that most people are happy with the restructured Profiles document [2] and the draft of the conformance definitions [3]. This has the additional advantage that, if we resolve Issue-116 along the lines we discussed (i.e., by *not* mandating the inclusion of RDF axiomatic triples and entailment rules in the RL/RDF rule set), then implementations can still add these triples and rules without becoming non-conformant. Regarding conformance, the suggestion was to leave the conformance definitions in the Test document (as per OWL 1), with references to this in the OWL RL definition where necessary, but to rename this document "Conformance and Testing". It seems very natural for conformance definitions and test cases to be together, and this also avoids fragmenting and/or repeating the conformance definitions. I would therefore propose that we resolve these three issues as follows: 1) Unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full as per the restructured Profiles document [2]. 2) Rename "Test" as "Conformance and Testing", and add the draft conformance definitions [3] as Section 2 of that document. 3) Add some text to the description of the RL/RDF rule set [4] stating that the RDF axiomatic triples and entailment rules are not required (because of possible performance problems), but can be added without compromising conformance. Regards, Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-27#130_and_131 [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance [4] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ Profiles#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 17:01:38 UTC