Natasha, (01)
That's a good criterion for many reasons: (02)
> I think it is reasonable to include the validation information
> as metadata, along with the specific reasoner used, but perhaps
> not as a requirement, just because it can be quite vague. (03)
But that is something that should not happen: (04)
> Then you have to be specific as to which reasoner: the state of
> the art is such, that depending on the constructs you use, your
> ontology can be perfectly valid OWL, but some OWL reasoners will
> not be happy with it, whereas others would think it is just fine. (05)
Unfortunately, it does happen, especially with operating systems
and other software from the most notorious source. (06)
Therefore, any validation data should be as specific as possible
in order to accommodate such "issues" (i.e., "bugs"). (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (09)
|