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.
>do you mean only Lite?  Does Euler fail any of the Lite tests at this
>point?  I was under the impression from something Jos said that he
>handled virtually all the Lite tests - did I misunderstand?

right, all current OWL Lite testcases are proved in
but this is of course no guarantee that this will be
the case for all OWL Lite testcases

the 7 "no proof found" ones are

also please let's not forget the simple OWL Full,
simply saying anything about anything,
and also the possibility of Socratic completeness
and the very inspiring thoughts in
and indeed the separation of mechanisms and policy

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 18:17:22 UTC