- 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
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