Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)
> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:12:23 +0100
> 
>> Seems good, specially concerning the actual role of users and 'implementors'
>> in the OWL 2 Profiles and in particular for RL where, making implementations
>> on top of rule extended DBMS possible, e.g. ORACLE, is clear. Perhaps point
>> to a concrete example ?
> 
> A concrete example of what?  I'm not sure that explicitly mentioning
> ORACLE in the response is the best approach.
> 

I agree that referring to ORACLE is not really appropriate. That said, I
think part of the issue is that there is no clear understanding when QL
could be or should be used as opposed to, say, RL (or EL or the DL
altogether for that matter). Neither the profile document nor any other
gives any help for that and my understanding is that this is Lilly's
main concern...

Profile checkers are very good things to refer to. But those are ad
posteriori tools, what we might need to have is some clear, a priori
guidelines for users (not implementers).

Ivan

>> Given the sentence in Lilly's comment "... in particular, identifying
>> different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic background. ..."
>> it might be welcome to add that profile checkers* are on the way that will
>> offer such functionality and allow them for checking just as they did
> 
> I added a sentence about profile checking to the response,
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/SS1a
> 
>> Christine
>>
>> * as pointed out by
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0035.html
> 
> peter
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf