RE: [DIG-users] Updating DIG 1.1

[Dickinson, I. J <Ian...@hp...>]

Hi Peter,
> As someone who was (peripherally) involved in the original 
> DIG specification, those comments all seem pretty reasonable. 
>  We discussed many of them at the time, and decided that 
> keeping the spec minimal, and hence simple to implement as a 
> first version, was a high priority.  Now that there's wider 
> take-up of DIG, it probably makes sense to put the extra 
> effort into extending the interface and making it rather more 
> standards-compliant.
Thanks for the comments Peter.  It's pretty clear that future versions of
DIG should continue to strike the balance between getting something useful
done quickly and being fully complete and general.

Happily, I'm getting to a point where the Jena DIG adapter is available for
experimental use.  Running against the OWL working group tests, I pass 106
out of 140 or so of the approved OWL-DL and OWL-lite tests (testing against
the latest version of Racer).  The remainder are either due to limitations
in DIG itself, or exceeding Racer's capabilities (e.g. stack overflow on
some of the more complex problems).  I take from this that DIG 1.1 is a
pretty good base to start from, and the work remaining to get it up to the
next level of usefulness is relatively modest.

Ian