Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

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