Re: possible compromise on rdf:XMLLiteral

Jeremy Carroll:
> This is the compromise proposal that I offered to put together.
> My belief is that this is unnecessary and I am happy with the documents as
> they are, complete with minor technical flaw. I would also be happy with the
> documents with this fix - but not if this change is one which puts at risk
> OWL reaching recommendation.
> I believe this proposal is a (small) technical improvement.
> Add between the definition of "OWL Full consistency checker" and "complete
> OWL Lite consistency checker" a new paragraph as follows.
> [[
> The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
> rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].
> ]]

I worry about the implementation burden here.  Jos, and other
implementors of OWL Full consistency checkers: do you plan to
implement support for XML Literal?  I'm not clear anymore what work is
really entailed here.  I heard on the call that c14n equivalence was
no longer needed, but that well-formedness-checking was.

> b) Modify test miscellaneous-205 by deletion of the word "Full" from its
> levels box.
> Corresponding modifications to the manifest file for the test, and the
> master manifest file.

I'd think another test should be added which is "Full" only and has
the opposite conclusion. 

> Test miscellaneous-205 was passed by FOWL, Pellet, OWLP, Hoolet and failed
> by  Consvisor. The related test miscellaneous-204 was passed by Pellet,
> Consvisor and Euler. OWLP, Pellet and Hoolet being explicitly OWL DL
> reasoners continue to pass test miscellaneous-205 appropriately. Consvisor
> being an OWL Full system which supports rdf:XMLLiteral already conforms with
> this implicit constraint of the OWL PR. It is unclear whether FOWL is an OWL
> DL or OWL Full reasoner, if the latter, then the change in the test metadata
> clarifies that they should implement the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype.
> ]]
> (It is not clear to me if the last para is appropriate in the change log).

It does seem odd, but I like it a lot.    Except maybe we can ask the
F-OWL folks [1] what they have in mind.

     -- sandro


Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 11:22:33 UTC