- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:40:47 -0400
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Some thoughts about the the rough-draft Exit Criteria [1]: * Lest some people think we'll try to cheat on the profiles criterion by having 8 DL reasoners :-) I'd add something like: Each of these should be a 'native' implementation, taking advantage of at least some of the claimed benefits of that profile. * I suggest we get rid of the "80%" test on OWL 2 Full. Looking at the results from OWL 1 [2] I'm not at all convinced this provided evidence of OWL 2 Full being interoperable and useful. I think I could have gotten Surnia up to passing 80%, and Richard Waldinger's similar FOL based system [3] might also, but I haven't heard of any of them having any traction on the market, even academically. Pellet (which passed 80%) does have traction, but I'm guessing the Pellet folks would agree the 80% test isn't useful. I'm thinking a better exit criteria for OWL Full might be: * Two systems which make use of some OWL 2 Full features (going outside of OWL-DL). Note that we do not expect any practical ''complete'' implementations of OWL 2 Full; rather, we expect it to be used piecemeal, with systems implementing only the parts of OWL 2 Full useful for their application. * We're a little too vague about the test suite. I'd suggest something at the top or bottom like: Some of these criteria depend on the OWL 2 test suite, which is expected to continue to evolve. For the purposes of these criteria, we only consider the "Approved" tests which are not "Extra-Credit", and which were approved before some cut-off date, to be determined later, some time during CR. -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=23906 [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out#table_1_Approved Full [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls [4] http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/owl/axiomatic.htm
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:41:02 UTC