Re: Updated Conformance and Test Cases

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>> "for example, very large integers". Do we not need a summary of what
>> minimal conformance for literals are?
>
> I added a pointer to the datatype map spec in syntax; I don't think that it
> is a good idea to either duplicate normative text or to fragment the
> normative description of the language any more than is absolutely necessary.

I don't see that pointer - just a reference to the whole syntax
document. I'd like it if there were explicit mention that there exist
minimal conformance levels for these and as direct a link as possible
to where they are specified.

>> "must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not
>> supported by its datatype map or literals that it does not support
>> (for example, very large integers); and"
>> I wonder whether the appropriate response here is Unknown rather than
>> Error. It seems rather like not having enough resources to evaluate
>> the check.
>
> Error seems right here; Error is also returned "if the computation fails,
> for example as a result of exceeding resource limits".

This doesn't seem to be a case of exceeding resource limits. It's a
case of making a choice to not supporting what is otherwise valid OWL.
 If tool claimed to support arbitrary precision integers and then
failed because it ran out of memory or when processing a million digit
integer then I would consider it a resource failure. If it doesn't
even try then I think it's clearly an unknown.

-Alan

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 23:21:42 UTC