Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal

Deborah,

This is an excellent summary of the discussion.

I only have one comment

The document says:

Some members (see for example, a posting from Horrocks) have made the 
point that it is not possible to come up with a single ordering of 
features for inclusion in terms of importance. There is agreement 
that one total ordering that is agreed upon by the group is not an 
achievable goal. There is also agreement that adding some features 
after other features are already in the language may make the 
addition more difficult than adding the same feature to a language 
that does not include certain other features. These two issues 
together may lead one to conclude that a core language should stay 
small so as not to unfairly penalize tool implementors who need to 
add features to the core language.

The above paragraph can be interpreted as implying  there is no 
chance to have both local universal and existential restrictions at 
level 1.  However, at least one posting by Ian 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0011.html) 
raised issue with the "feature interaction axiom" and maybe at this 
stage of the discussion we should not rule out (yet!) the possibility 
of having both types of restriction at level 1.

Enrico


>At the last telecon, I took the action item to produce a compliance
>level 1 document by today.
>The document is available at:
>http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/compliance.html
>
>Please review it so that it can be discussed at this thursday's webont
>telecon.
>Comments as usual to webont.
>
>thanks,
>Deborah
>--
>  Deborah L. McGuinness
>  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
>  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
>  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
>  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
>  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)
>801 705 0941