implementability + HP last call position


I heard your ruling as chair that discussion of CR exit criteria is not in 
order yet.

I think that means that HP should probably abstain on the last call votes, 
but indicate a concern that the recommendation we are drafting is not 
currently implementable as is. This concern is best addressed with 
appropriate CR exit criteria and actual implementations of one sort or 


I suspect there was a communication failure over the specific proposals I 
was making: you seemed to see them as unreasonable, and they were not 
intended as such, but we can have another go at that when such discussion 
is in order.

You also indicated that you believed we would have DL reasoners as part of 
our implementation report. I think HP's objection would substantially be 
met by one or two DL reasoners which could in some sense be called complete 
(e.g. the implementors believe them to be, and they pass all the DL test 
cases) and practical (in the Horrocks' sense of the word).

So I hope that an abstention at this stage, combined with a last call 
comment by the HP team as to what we would be expecting to see as part of 
the implementation report, would be sufficient to permit us to raise a 
formal objection at say, the transition to PR, without surprising anyone.

In this light I withdraw my message:
"Entailments and normativity"

still believing that it expresses a way of correctly setting user 
expectations, but prepared to be compelled by the evidence in our 
implementation report.


Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 09:43:20 UTC