- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:02:48 -0500 (EST)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: RE: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:23:12 +0100 > I wrote: > > Reasoning components MAY claim "most of OWL DL reasoning" if > > they provide at > > least OWL Lite reasoning and ... [tbd] (e.g. pass 90% of the tests). > > I heard: > 90% is a very bad idea. > > I didn't hear alternatives for the [tbd] ... > > Suggestions please. Here is my VERY STRONG (i.e., can't live without) suggestion: Remove the entire idea of supporting a claim of "most of OWL DL reasoning". Even further, I strongly believe that there is no place in the OWL conformance definitions for anything like "most" or "almost all" or "some". [...] > Jeremy peter
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 07:03:02 UTC