- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:44:08 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html DanC: > On closer examination of the comment, it seems > to be more about what goes in OWL DL than > what goes in OWL Lite. And in ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0174.html DanC: >Please help me find the relevant decisions >and/or find evidence that those implementations >pass some relevant tests and/or add an >issue to the issues list. In January, we agreed a definition of a "complete OWL DL consistency checker", if we had evidence that such a thing existed, and/or that more than one would exist in the future (and the WG was satisfied that they would be practically usable, rather than essentially theoretical exercises) then we could respond with a message that indicated that, and that we thought that that was sufficient to justify the DL level. If we don't have such evidence then I agree with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html DanC: > Mr. Merry's point, "We're concerned that OWL users should have their > expectations met when they use OWL compliant systems." seems well > made, no? (A danger is that if OWL DL is tainted then the whole OWL brand is tainted). Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 02:43:58 UTC