- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:23:23 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > I don't think Martin's position depends on such claims. > Meanwhile, proving large and complex ontologies consistent > is among the very few tasks the WG chose to highlight > with a software conformance clause. He evidently finds > insufficient implementation experience to justify > advancing the spec to Proposed Rec as is. > I think his point is well made, though perhaps not > compelling. I haven't made up my mind whether I find > it convincing or not. > That was then, this is now ... I am not sure what Martin's current position is - merely that without a single implementation passing these two tests that the response given during LC is invalidated. I have heard a variety of arguments from within HP and I am not trying to suggest that without systems passing these tests that we will oppose advancement. Whatever, the WG should be trying to reach consensus as to why we should move forward despite not passing these tests - although I am happy to wait for a few more implementors' reports. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 12:07:34 UTC