move oneOf - should issue be opened? (was Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP)

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).
>>  --
>>  Dan Connolly, W3C

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 
  - JH
p.s. I am also assuming when we say "oneOf" we also include 
"hasValue" - is that correct?

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 17:21:23 UTC