- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 16:32:44 -0400
- To: <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: <sandro@w3.org>, <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I suggest something more should be said about the disposition of rdf:text. As things stand, what is an implementor supposed to do? This might be as generic as The changes to the functionality provided by rdf:text will require minimal changes to implementations. peter From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: CR Exit Criteria Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 12:47:43 -0500 > Yet another re-working of the exit criteria is now available in the > usual place [1]. As well as adding the improved "at risk" text, it > also separates the Full, DL and Profiles cases a little more clearly. > For Full I now have: > > "At least two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment > checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and passing a useful > subset of the non-DL test cases. " > > No doubt you will let me know if you don't like this formulation. > > Ian > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 20:33:33 UTC