Re: Votes to advance documents to LC and CR

Regarding implementations, we already have an implementation page  
[1]. I expect to add several more (candidate) implementation in the  
near future.

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations


On 20 May 2009, at 16:52, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Ian - I think these are all necessary, but I think there are some  
> others we need for QL and RL - particularly since we claim these to  
> be related to RDBMS technologies, I think we need to see that  
> validated.
>  But please note the following (also addresses what Sandro stated  
> about OWL Full in his email) -- in WOWG we had tests in our test  
> set that tested every single feature (i.e. each possible vocabulary  
> item) added to RDF(S) by OWL - so that the criteria that required  
> every test be passable meant that every feature of Full (and also  
> of the others) was at least separately implementable.  The 80% was  
> not meant to show that many features could be supported together -  
> and it also included some where the expectation was that a DL  
> reasoner would not be able to properly handle (and there were a lot  
> of details in the test set about what these meant - see the OWL 1  
> test case document)
>  I think Michael or someone needs to go through the current OWL 2  
> design vs. the tests, and make sure we have something in the CR  
> results that gaurantees that every feature is implementable - the  
> 80% should then also be included (or something similar) for the  
> same reason.
>  So I think Ian provides a great starting place - but as the  
> original OWL was only differentiating 3 things, and the new one at  
> least 5 (Full, DL, RL, QL, EL) we have some extra  
> responsibilities.   Also because the rationales for some of the  
> profiles are different than the ones in OWL 1 (particularly, where  
> QL and RL refer to RDBMS technology) we must show that the claimed  
> benefits are realizable in implementations.
>  So these are what I would hope we would work towards.
>   -JH
> p.s. Would also be useful as an internal document to do what we did  
> with the OWL 1 criteria and identify current candidates we think  
> can handle what is being proposed - based on my experience from  
> WOWG, when we presented the Exit Criterion to the Director, he  
> wanted some evidence that our proposed time frames were realistic -  
> by having candidates we were able to seriously shorten the time (if  
> I recall correctly, without that we would have been forced to have  
> at least a 6 month CR)
>
> On May 20, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
>> After discussions with Alan and Sandro I redrafted the "candidate"  
>> CR exit criteria [1] in a way that I hope meets some of the  
>> concerns that have been expressed. Hopefully they are at least a  
>> sensible starting point for our discussion.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria
>>
>>
>
> "Con un poco de semántica ya se consigue ir muy lejos"
>
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler,  
> twitter
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:51:01 UTC