Re: apologies and TEST update

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 16:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> I am sorry I needed to drop out of the telecon before we got to TEST on the 
> agenda.
> 
> I had a few things I had wanted to say:
> 
> 1: there may be a few more test cases ready before the f2f; but the text ain't 
> changing in that time scale.
> 
> 2: thanks to Shimizu for the review, at first glance comments look helpful. I 
> will try to give detailed response before f2f.
> 
> 3: I am eager for WG input on the conformance section,

pointer?

>  which is the major 
> piece of new text. In particular it talks about 
> + complete OWL Lite 
> + complete OWL DL reasoners
> + OWL systems that can distinguish OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full documents (by 
> running the mapping rules in reverse?)

Please remove all the stuff about "OWL systems" "OWL reasoners"
and whatnot. Please let's just specify the owl vocabulary
and its semantics, and leave specification of software systems
out of our spec.

Rationale:

Our charter doesn't require us to do it;
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter#L778
we have little experience doing it. Based on my experience
with HTML, XML, and XML Schema specifications,
I think it takes a lot of time and provides
relatively little value.



> As far as I know there are no implementations fo the last, and Ian has 
> indicated difficulty in implementing the second ...
> 
> I think it is worth clarifying at the f2f if that is really what the wg wants 
> for conformance, since the absence of conforming implementations is likely to 
> hold things up at CR, (a step that the chair still seems to think will be 
> optional for us - a wish that requires a weakening of the conformance 
> statements).

We need enough implementation experience to convince
ourselves (and our reviewers and The Director) that
the design of the vocabulary/language is useful
and correct. We don't need to do software conformance
testing.


> 
> There is some text in the current test WD about incomplete reasoners which 
> needs to be worked back in to the new text. Its absence from the drafts for 
> review should not be read as a desire by the editors to drop it, simply that 
> it is commented out at the moment, awaiting another burst of editing 
> enthusiasm. The current intent is that incomplete reasoners will not get a 
> conformance level.
> 
> 
> Jeremy

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 19:37:43 UTC