- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 22:11:00 -0400
- To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, sandro@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > 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. I'm not sure how this helps, and I can see it being more of a liability than anything. Given that it's hard to interpret what "minimal changes" means, and that we haven't yet come to the final shape of the solution, I worry that any changes could lead to unnecessary, and not easily resolvable, complaints. If we want to give more information I suggest it would be a pointer to the mailing list so that implementors make their own judgements. -Alan > > 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 Sunday, 24 May 2009 02:12:00 UTC