- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:12:26 +0200
- To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter wrote:
> However, I think the WG may need to split out the (at least)
> three possible uses of the tests in order to make progress on
> this discussion:
>
> 1) Political expediency dictating that {all, many} of the tests
> should be passable by {all, many} of the implementations.
>
> 2) Useful test cases for implementors, intended to exercise
> everything from the trivial to the complex
> 3)
> Torture tests
>
I am pretty sure that Dave was coming solidly from the (2) case - he has
found some of our tests useful, and he found some others of our tests useful
after a little rework - he was just offering these back into our collective
implementors' tool-kit. Personally I think we should only reject them if we
believe everyone else is going to implement the comprehension axioms. Seems
unlikely, OWL implementors who aren't chasing completeness, may well wish to
avoid thinking about comprehension, or like Dave, think about it and decide
that it is not appropriate in their environment.
I am sure he is surprised at the level of debate this offer has excited.
(Type 3) is my favourite - why do we have such a complicated language if
there aren't implementations !! :) ).
Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 09:23:44 UTC