W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: OWL2 RL - conformance test question(s)

From: Barry Bishop <barry.bishop@ontotext.com>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:49:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4C00F155.8050202@ontotext.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Michael,

Thanks very much for the quick response.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what to do next. My rule-engine and
rule-set seem to have the correct behaviour, because I have tested
against a set of unit tests of my own creation. What I was really hoping
to do, was to get hold of official/approved tests that could thoroughly
test my implementation.

Do you suppose that 'rlrulescomplete=Yes' is used consistently
throughout the test descriptions? If so, I could extract them one by one.

Thanks a lot,
barry

On 29/05/2010 00:11, Michael Schneider wrote:
> [asked to the OWL WG, but posted to OWL-DEV, so no need for a formal reply]
> 
> Hi Barry!
> 
> These are clearly not tests for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rule language, they are
> much too hard. 
> 
> Here is an example for a test that is really intended for the RL Rules:
> 
>  
> http://owl.semanticweb.org/page/Rdfbased-sem-restrict-somevalues-inst-subj
> 
> When you view the source code of this test, you will find the following line
> at the end:
> 
>     rlrulescomplete=Yes
> 
> This is the indicator for those tests that are created for the RL Rules.
> 
> There has been a specific bulk download of only these tests in the past, but
> it looks to me that it is broken now. On the right hand side of the test
> homepage, you can find the link
> 
>     Tests for RL-RDF-rule reasoners
> 
> but it is empty. 
> 
> You may play around with SMW queries yourself. But a quick shot would be to
> simply hit the link to my name under "Top Contributors", which will give you
> a list of tests that a colleague and I have contributed, and these tests
> have all been created specifically for the RL rules.
> 
> You can also get a larger test suite, including all these tests, but also
> tests concerning the different datatypes of OWL 2 RL (and a few more
> aspects). Get our OWLED paper at [1]. It contains a download link in the
> references. If you have any further questions about this test suite, feel
> free to ask me privately.
> 
> Best,
> Michael
> 
> [1] Michael Schneider and Kai Mainzer:
>     A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language 
>     and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics.
>     <http://www.webont.org/owled/2009/papers/owled2009_submission_19.pdf>
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Barry Bishop
>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:52 PM
>> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
>> Subject: OWL2 RL - conformance test question(s)
>>
>> Hello OWL2 working group,
>>
>> I would like to ask a couple of fairly straightforward questions
>> regarding the conformance tests, and the semantics, of the RL profile.
>>
>> It is very likely that I have missed something fundamental, so I would
>> be very pleased if someone could nudge me in the right direction.
>>
>> I have implemented the RDF semantics using the rule set given in:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-
>> profiles/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules
>>
>> However, I am finding this hard to reconcile with the conformance tests
>> found here:
>> http://owl.semanticweb.org/exports/approved/profile-RL.rdf
>>
>> because some of the expected conclusions of the positive entailment
>> tests can not by produced by any of the RL entailment rules (I have been
>> careful to select only those tests labelled with 'test:semantics
>> test:RDF-BASED').
>>
>> A couple of specific examples:
>>
>>
>> Chain2trans
>> ===========
>> Premise ontology:
>>
>> <http://example.org/#p> rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
>> _:bnode0 rdf:first <http://example.org/#p> ;
>>    rdf:rest _:bnode1 .
>> _:bnode1 rdf:first <http://example.org/#p> ;
>>    rdf:rest rdf:nil .
>> <http://example.org/#p> owl:propertyChainAxiom _:bnode0 .
>>
>> Conclusion ontology:
>>
>> <http://example.org/#p> rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty .
>>
>> Search as I might, I can not find any entailment rules with
>> owl:TransitiveProperty in the head. So how can this be?
>>
>>
>> DisjointClasses-001
>> ===================
>> Premise ontology:
>>
>> <http://example.org/Boy> rdf:type owl:Class .
>> <http://example.org/Girl> rdf:type owl:Class .
>> <http://example.org/Boy> owl:disjointWith <http://example.org/Girl> .
>> <http://example.org/Stewie> rdf:type <http://example.org/Boy> .
>>
>> Conclusion ontology:
>>
>> <http://example.org/Girl> rdf:type owl:Class .
>> _:bnode1 rdf:type owl:Class ;
>>    owl:complementOf <http://example.org/Girl> .
>> <http://example.org/Stewie> rdf:type _:bnode1 .
>>
>> However, there are no OWL2-RL rules that have blank nodes in the head.
>>
>> Perhaps I have misunderstood this (in regard to RDFS semantics):
>>
>> "An OWL 2 RL/RDF implementation MAY include these triples and entailment
>> rules as necessary without invalidating the conformance requirements for
>> OWL 2 RL [OWL 2 Conformance]."
>>
>> - my implementation does not have, for example, RDF(S) se1 & se2 rules.
>>
>> Or is there some other required behaviour somewhere that I have
>> overlooked?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance,
>> barry
>>
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================
> 
Received on Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:50:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:58 GMT