Re: HP reactions to AS&S and OWL

> I'm confused Jeremy - we saw ample examples of implementation of OWL 
> tools at the f2f, and I'm still not sure what features of Lite you 
> believe are unimplemented.  I asked several times at the f2f for people 
> to bring up things they think are as yet unimplemented but needed for 
> moving to PR, and very few were mentioned - my lab took two actions to 
> produce some of this.  You brought up none and volunteered none.  I have 
> been drafting some starts at the implementation experience, and I don't 
> see any major holes -- please identify any you have so we can start to 
> fill them


Currently noone has a complete OWL Lite reasoner.
I have every reason to believe that NI will deliver one, but that's one 
rather than two.

If OWL Lite is meant to be easy, and a trustworthy basis for 
interoperability then we should be looking at more than one complete OWL 
Lite reasoner before exiting CR.

Also I am dubious that full tools that incompletely support lite will give 
the sort of interoperability that wg members were looking for.

So to justify its existence Lite not only needs to be implemented, but we 
should get the feeling that almost all OWL tools will migrate to having 
complete OWL Lite capability. My colleagues are more doubtful of this than 
I am.

I volunteered no tools because within the time frame requested it is 
unlikely that HP will be able to deliver any. That does not mean that we 
are not working on OWL. If the wind blows in our favour we just might have 
a version of Jena with OWL support in it, (i.e. a programming environment 
which processes imports and allows RDF/XML to be manipulated using the 
abstractions from OWL).

If you can circulate a draft of the implementation report I would like 

to ask my colleagues for their comments.


Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:13:05 UTC