- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:48:26 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Hi, > > > > So we need to figure out what evidence will help us figure out > > who's more right. (I don't think there is a clear, unchallangable > > "right" here, but many factors to be weighed.[skip] > > > > We may decide to leave things as they are, put an editor's note into > the document about the possible change and publish a new Working > Draft with that additional note, asking for explicit feedback from the > community. That is what the public review process is made for... > > Ivan > Given the fact that there has been so much debate on this topic, I think Ivan's suggestion is very good and it is going to be very helpful to seek feedback from the community. > B.t.w, there seems to be a side issue of Boris' proposal that affects > implementations, too. If I want to be really compliant OWL-R in the > proposed new approach, I am supposed to implement the check, just as you > describe above. While I could (and I did) implement OWL-R-Full easily > and quickly on top of an existing RDF environment, doing the backward > mapping to functional syntax and check the result against OWL-R-DL is a > non-trivial extra work on implementers... > I agree with this extra-work argument from an implementer's perspective. Cheers, Zhe
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:51:05 UTC