- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:09:56 -0600
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
regarding... "30 Jan (Thu) test reviews due (ACTION Connolly, Stanton)" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf5.html#Schedule I spent some time looking over... http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:41:58 GMT Only one CRITICAL issue, re conflict resolution stuff; see below. Otherwise, I didn't find any problems; I have some editorial suggestions, but nothing major. I like the idea of publishing it ASAP, without "last call" status. It represents significant progress since our Oct publication. Detailed comments... | [[EDITORS' NOTE: Do we need index files for the web site that clarify which parts are part of the deliverable and which are not?]] No, but we need a link to the zip file. It goes with the "this version" link, I think... yes... http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#formats http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#conformance | 2.2. Conflict Resolution The stuff about "If the OWL recommendation has passed Proposed Recommendation then..." is out of scope for this WG. This document can't sign W3C up to do work after we're gone, and can't override errata processes otherwise established by W3C. Please strike. CRITICAL. | 3.2. Entailment Tests Clarify that there's more than one entialment relationship to test for. Something like... The conclusions are related to the premsises by one of three entailment relationships: -- OWL Full entailment (cf section 5.4. OWL Full of [AS&S]) for those tests tagged "Full" ... similarly for Lite/DL The same comment applies to the following sections, up to 3.8. Import Entailment Tests, though it may suffice to clarify just the one section. The conformance stuff looks correct, though I'd like to see a bit more examples/verbiage. In particular... | A complete OWL Lite consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an OWL Lite document as input, and is logically complete with respect to [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics] over the set of all OWL Lite documents. 'logically complete' isn't clear enough in that context. We're talking to hackers here, not logicians. Say something about 'always returns yes or no'. Also, consider separating 'resource exhausted' from "don't know" in the case of complete consistency checkers. And perhaps Complete consistency checkers SHOULD have resource limits clearly documented, and SHOULD offer parameters about how much resource to consume before giving up. I'd really like to see the test descriptions refer to specific parts of AS&S, but I didn't get around to specific suggestions, so I'll understand if you don't either. I'd also like to run thru some of the tests in the "C proposed" section, but I didn't get to it yet. Perhaps tomorrow. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 19:10:29 UTC