- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:41:36 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <48BEA220.9040505@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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. > O.k. I was not precise. By 'Implement in an afternoon' I meant for somebody who does not really know much more than having good programming skills and knowing how to use some sort of an RDF environment. I do not believe that would be true for OWL DL, EL++ or DL Lite, which do require a knowledge of DL algorithms that most mortals do not have (I certainly don't). For that to be acquired is probably more than a week... Anyway. The issue is that implementing OWL-RL/RDF is very easy, way easier than the others. Can we agree on that? >> 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". > ... which is a relative notion to the rest of the tool to be implemented. And I fear this is the case here. Ivan > Bijan. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 14:42:11 UTC