Re: TEST: last call candidate

>>  1 - section 5 - Testing an OWL implementation is labeled Informative.
>>  I believe it would be consistent with WG decisions to be either
>>  informative or normative (at the editors' discretion)

Since I suggested either informative or normative, and you declined, 
I take that to mean you will remove the section completely - right?

(that is:

I said: Normative V Informative
you said decline (taken to mean "Not")
which means  -(Normative V informative)
which becomes  -Normative ^ -Informative

(I can do it in Predicate logic if you'd prefer, but then I'd need to 
skolemize a variable...)



>a) the text of this section has had less care than normative text (some of the
>phrasing is less precise than I would like with MUSTs and SHOULDs)
>b) the musts and shoulds are logical consequences of the MUSTS and SHOULDS in
>the conformance section. I would expect OWL implementors to grok that,
>without an explicit upcasing.
>c) that would make running the test suite obligatory for OWL implementations
>to claim conformance - if we choose to do that we would need more work on the
>abstract and introduction to make that clear, and it's a bit late for that.
>I would be happy to reconsider if there is more call for this change.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:35:57 UTC