- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:50:46 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On May 14, Dan Connolly writes: > > 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. We could add some words making it clear that we don't know how to build one at the moment (or at least not a "practical" one). Ian > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:15:34 UTC