- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:14:02 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Jim Hendler wrote: > I'm okay with this one except for one thing -- you have > > At 5:57 PM +0100 6/19/03, Ian Horrocks wrote: > >This document only provides definitions of various parts of OWL. Turning > >these definitions into effective procedures is a task for implementors. > > which is begging for someone to say "you need a long CR for this" -- > however, our web page has a pointer to Sean's validator which proves > this can be implemented - so why don't we say > > "This document only provides definitions of various parts of OWL. Turning > these definitions into effective procedures is a task for > implementors (c.f.the OWL Species Validator, available from the WG > web page or at [5]), which is such an implementation). > > > [5] http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator" As anyone who knows me will confirm, I'm always the first to diss my own implementations. Having said that, In this case I am a little wary of using this as a justification here (if that is in fact what is happening). I'm *pretty sure* I'm getting most of my implementation "right", but it would not at all surprise me if there are places where it's a little flaky, (for example in areas like imports or data ranges, should anyone wish to probe it :-). I would agree that it shows that one can make a good stab at implementing a parser (where I mean here something that turns the RDF into some other structure and tries to do some validation on the way), but I wouldn't claim that it shows I know how to tackle the whole language. This is perhaps nit-picking, but I don't want it to appear like *I'm* claiming I've built a 100% correct OWL validator. Because I don't think I have (yet :-) Cheers, Sean -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 05:15:23 UTC