- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:21:11 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 7:50 PM +0100 5/14/03, Ian Horrocks wrote: >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/ >> Is there a reason we don't move oneOf to Full then? While i like having same vocabulary in DL and Full, my group has lots of tools that do nice things with oneOf - but generally not reasoning, so we're happy to do it in Full. If no one has implemented a reasoner which can do oneOf, the existance of an algorithm doesn't help -- we need to point to two implementations of the algorithm that work in the real world (for example, an algorithm for optimal chess is trivial to design, but it takes a billion years or more to run given infinite memory - in practice, building a good chess player proved to be very difficult). I am tempted to raise an issue on this, but worried it would get contentious - but the WG never actually discussed this, we included oneOf because DAML did. I'd like to hear if people think this needs opening. - JH p.s. I am also assuming when we say "oneOf" we also include "hasValue" - is that correct? -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu 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) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 17:21:23 UTC