Re: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance

On 3 Sep 2008, at 14:34, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> Just for my understanding: what would that require for an
>>> implementation? Would it mean that the RDF graph has to be converted
>>> into the functional syntax and check against RDF-RL?
>> That is how it is *defined*, but tools are free to *implement* it  
>> in any
>> way they choose -- it might be possible, e.g., to implement checks  
>> that
>> operate directly on the RDF graph.
> Sure, but that would not make it simpler. The huge advantage of the
> OWL-RL is that it can be implemented (o.k., with scruffy edges here  
> and
> there) in an afternoon on top of an existing RDF environment.

Actually, this is true for all the profiles and maybe a week for OWL DL.

Whether these implementations would be *production quality* is an  
interesting question (the OWL DL one, definitely not :)).

I have to say that catering to the "implement in an afternoon" base  
probably isn't really sensible. After all, you can implement (most  
of) it in an afternoon either way.

>  Such an
> extra 'must' check would make it way more complicated. Hence my
> preference of leaving it as a 'may'

Technically, I think they could claim conformance by providing a  
separate check tool, such as will soon be freely available both for  
download/distribution and as a web service :)

Is there anything wrong with "SHOULD" here? I think it ought to be  
encouraged, at the very least. A reasonable argument for violating  
the should could be "too great performance impact".


Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 13:50:44 UTC