complete checkers should or MUST pass tests

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL
>>consistency checker should not return Unknown  
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^  MUST NOT

This comment concerns section 5.2 of the test cases

which is currently informative and also does not have RFC 2119 in scope to 
define the word MUST. The choice of the word "should" was intended to 
reflect the constraints on a complete consistency checker from 4.2.2

If we wanted to make this change I would suggest the following:

In the quoted text replace "should not" by "must not"

In the normative section

Add the following after the definitions of complete OWL Lite and complete 
OWL DL consistency checkers.

A complete consistency checker MUST NOT return unknown on any of the 
relevant normative consistency and inconsistency tests in this document.


is that what you wanted?
what does anyone else think?


Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 05:00:50 UTC