Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

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

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:05:10 UTC