W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 14 May 2003 10:03:14 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1052924594.20114.476.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 07:11, Jim Hendler wrote:
> I 
> therefore suggest that editing Ref and Guide to set expectations is 
> the correct solution - consistent w/WG decisions in the past.

Sounds workable...

But I wonder about test too...

> At 8:44 AM +0300 5/14/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> >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.

I too wonder if the "complete OWL DL consistency checker" conformance
clause sets reasonable expectations. I'm very unlikely to
put my name on a request for Proposed Recommendation with
(a) a spec with such a conformance clause in it, but (b) no
such piece of software available.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:05:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:45 UTC