- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:06:33 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-archive@w3.org
At 10:50 AM +0100 9/8/03, Dave Reynolds wrote: >[Not to the list since I assume I shouldn't be posting there myself.] how about moving it to public-webont-comments or at least cc'ing www-archives (like this) -- be nice to have this discussion in a logged place -- however Dave, you're welcome to continue this on the webont list so we can keep a single strand of discussion -JH > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> I don't understand this distinction. Why cannot the first formulation also >> be trivially mechanically translated into a query for an RDF API in exactly >> the same way that the second can? > >It can be, but only if all the comprehension inferences are enabled. >There are some issues with that for a triple interface. > >> Given that I don't see any significant difference between the two >> formulations aside from the need for comprehension inferences in the >> first I don't see any benefit here apart from a test for comprehension >> inferences. > >That is the suggested benefit - separating tests of the >comprehension inferences from tests of the other inferences. > >Ian Horrocks wrote: > >> Even adding duplicate easier versions of tests seems to be >> misguided. If we want to "encourage" implementors, we could simply add >> lots of trivial tests that everyone can easily pass (just to be clear, >> I am not suggesting this!). And where does this end - do we add >> multiple versions of every test, each carefully tuned so that it can >> be passed by a given implementation? > >That's a fair concern. > >It does seem likely that there will be quite a few implementions of >non-identical non-lite/dl subsets of OWL/Full and having a >sufficient spectrum of tests to enable developers to compare such >subsets could be useful. In particular, people coming to this from >the RDF world will be expecting that RDFS inferences and free use of >RDF (e.g. use of bNodes) will remain possible - this will >immediately place them in this "non-lite/dl subset of OWL/full" >category. Limiting the comprehension inferences is, possibly, one >way that some implementors of this category might moderate the >unboundedness of OWL/full. > >This was intended as a constructive suggestion and I certainly don't >want to undermine the tests in any way - I'll accept whatever the >working group consensus is. > >Dave -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 23:06:50 UTC