W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Guide tests

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:37:14 +0100
Message-ID: <16258.63946.762385.156973@galahad.cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

On October 7, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 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.

Surely you can't be serious! It has always been crystal clear
(including in our responses to LC comments) that we don't currently
have a decision procedure for OWL DL (we removed the definition of
"complete OWL Lite consistency checker" from test for this reason).
The inability of existing implementations to reliably prove the
consistency of OWL DL ontologies is an obvious consequence of this
fact. Moreover, the spec allows conforming consistency checkers to
return "Unknown" when they are unable to determine if a document is
consistent or inconsistent.

Complaining about this now does not seem reasonable.


> 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 13:41:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:49 UTC