- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:15:29 +0100
- To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
>>>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 http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5-proof.n3 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 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest006 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest005 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest002 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest003 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameClassAs/Manifest006 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameClassAs/Manifest007 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/someValuesFrom/Manifest001 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 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Logic.html and indeed the separation of mechanisms and policy -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 18:17:22 UTC