Conformance was Re: apologies and TEST update

Jim:
> Jeremy - can you provide a pointer to latest version (and possibly to 
> conformance section if not easy to find). 

The latest version is:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0091/01-main.jsp.html

(as Jos said in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0281.html
)

The conformance section is:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0091/01-main.jsp.html#conformance

And reads:


[[
 This section uses the language of [RFC 2117]. (sic) 

A language tool without a reasoning capability MAY claim OWL Lite conformance 
if it can: 

+ Accept all OWL Lite constructs. 
+ Distinguish RDF/XML documents that conform with OWL Lite from those that do 
not. Specifically, it MUST identify those RDF/XML documents that can be 
formed by applying the mapping from the abstract syntax for OWL Lite as 
defined in [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]. 
+ Provide support for name separation corresponding to the separation of the 
domain of discourse. 

A language tool without a reasoning capability MAY claim OWL DL conformance If 
it is OWL Lite conformant and it can: 

+ Accept all OWL constructs. 
+ Distinguish RDF/XML documents that conform with OWL DL from those that do 
not. Specifically, it MUST identify those RDF/XML documents that can be 
formed by applying the mapping from the abstract syntax for OWL DL. 

Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim OWL Full conformance 
if they are OWL DL conformant and they allow name separation support to be 
switched off. Specifically, the following possibilities SHOULD be supported. 

+ Classes, datatypes and properties SHOULD be useable as instance data.
+ Classes and datatypes SHOULD be useable as properties.
+ Data valued properties SHOULD be useable as individual valued properties.
+ Subclasses and subproperties of classes and properties in the RDF, RDFS and 
OWL namespaces SHOULD be allowed.

 Reasoning components MAY claim complete OWL DL conformance [or complete OWL 
Lite conformance] if they provide complete reasoning over OWL DL [or OWL 
Lite]. i.e. A conformant complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner MUST find proofs for 
all OWL DL [Lite] inferences. A conformant complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner 
MAY find proofs for any OWL Full inference. A system which claims complete 
OWL DL conformance MUST also be OWL DL conformant.A system which claims 
complete OWL Lite conformance MUST also be OWL Lite conformant. 

A document MAY be described as an OWL Lite document if: 

+ It does not use any constructs not in OWL Lite. 
+ It corresponds to some document in the abstract syntax for OWL Lite using 
the mapping defined in [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]. 

A document MAY be described as an OWL DL document if: 

+ It does not use any constructs not in OWL DL. 
+ It corresponds to some document in the abstract syntax for OWL DL using the 
mapping defined in [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].


]]

Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 16:31:46 UTC