RE: Jena comment: Syntax Checker Implementation Report]

> In this message, your group mentions [1] and suggests its inclusion
> somewhere in our specs or at least available -- as I recall, this is
> something you had included as part of a formal objection that later
> got retracted, so this document is in something of an "orphan" state
> -- on the other hand, it seem to provide something that several
> comments have asked for -- maybe we could bring it out of the scrap
> heap and the WG could consider whether and where to make it available
> -- would you, as author, be willing to do this?
>   -JH
> [1]

I don't believe that's been retracted.

The code that produced that document has been updated as part of the Jena
syntax checker ...

> would you, as author, be willing to do this?

yes, as long as we fix the NP complete problem rule. (Otherwise I don't
believe the task is doable. Other fixes would also be welcome, but not

The parts that require real work are:
1: to do with the proof of equivalence

2: sanity check that the abstract syntax *is* the one in S&AS.

3: review of the additional constraints (e.g. the orphaned OntologyProperty
constraint is not expressed in [1], but is there in S&AS).


Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 09:35:08 UTC