W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Fwd: Problems with OWL 1 tests

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:24:11 +0100
Message-Id: <E39F2E2C-E1BB-4EAD-90EF-7073ABAA1EE4@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Date: 3 August 2009 20:28:33 BDT
> To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Cc: "OWL1.1 Chairs" <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>, Birte Glimm  
> <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Problems with OWL 1 tests
>
>> Birte has very kindly compiled the appended list of OWL 1 tests that
>> were discovered to have problems.
>
> Why is this to chairs instead of the WG?
>
>> Most are simply syntax problems. Some, however, were reported as
>> passed even though the reference result is incorrect. I note that
>> WebOnt-miscellaneous-010 was only passed by Euler, and that WebOnt-
>> AnnotationProperty-001 was only passed by Euler and Cerebra (oops!),
>> and was actually failed by OWLP (which we now know to have been  
>> right).
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> 1. WebOnt-miscellaneous-010
>> is a negative and NOT positive entailment test
>
> Just picking on the first one, the current version of Pellet says the
> entailment does hold:
>
> $ pellet entail -e http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/ 
> conclusions010 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/premises010
> All axioms are entailed
>
> It's possible Pellet is wrong -- maybe it was intentionally broken  
> so as
> to pass the test case? -- but much more of a case needs to be made  
> here,
> I think.
>
> Digging a little deeper, it's not a trivial failure on Pellet's  
> part.  I
> added another triple to the conclussion (in a local copy):
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/ 
> data#Sandro">
>     <rdf:type rdf:resource="&food;Pie"/>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
> and Pellet rightly complained:
>
>    Non-entailments:
>    ClassAssertion(Pie Sandro)
>
> What conclusions are supposedly not entailed?  The conclusions seem to
> be like "there exists something which hasDrink foo and hasFood bar"
> which seems plausible enough, but I haven't tried to do the  
> reasoning by
> hand.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>> 2. WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-001
>> is a positive and NOT a negative entailment test (and actually makes
>> only really sense for RDF-Based semantics reasoner, which use a
>> different copy of the test as a positive entailment test, this one is
>> only for direct semantics)
>> Agreed solution (last week) was to reject AnnotationProperty-001 and
>> make
>> AnnotationProperty-002 applicable to both semantics
>>
>> 3. WebOnt-disjointWith-010
>> not OWL 2 DL (invalid use of DisjointClasses), was corrected to OWL
>> Full only
>>
>> 4. WebOnt-Nothing-002 (no status yet, but still stated to be OWL DL)
>> not OWL DL
>>
>> 5. WebOnt-I5.8-011
>> was syntactically incorrect (extra > character in the premise)
>>
>> 6. WebOnt-I5.3-015
>> was not OWL 2 DL due to missing typing information, is now only OWL
>> Full test
>>
>> 7. WebOnt-I5.5-004 (no status yet, but still stated to be OWL DL)
>> not OWL 2 DL
>>
>> 8. WebOnt-I5.8-015
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype data#type
>>
>> 9. WebOnt-I5.3-014
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses rdf:type in an axiom
>>
>> 10. WebOnt-I5.1-001 (no status, no species indicator, both semantics)
>> not OWL 2 DL: Typing information for 'population', 'stateCode', and
>> 'stateBird' is missing.
>> A fix would involve an inverse-functional datatype property; hence,
>> this test should simply not be a DL test.
>>
>> 11. WebOnt-I5.8-017 (no status, no species indicator, both semantics)
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype #bar
>>
>> 12. WebOnt-I5.5-007 (now OWL Full, RDF-Based Semantics)
>> not OWL 2 DL: test contains an anonymous class
>>
>> 13. WebOnt-I5.8-013 (now OWL Full, RDF-Based semantics only)
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype #bar
>>
>> 14. WebOnt-I5.8-014 (no status, no species indicator, both semantics,
>> description mentions OWL Full only)
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype data#type
>>
>> 15. WebOnt-I5.5-002
>> conclusion is in OWL 2 DL: asserts rdf:rest to be functional
>>
>> 16. WebOnt-I5.8-016 (now OWL Full, only RDF-Based semantics)
>> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype data#type
>>
>> 17. WebOnt-I5.5-001
>> conclusion is in OWL 2 DL: asserts rdf:rest to be functional
>>
>> 18. WebOnt-description-logic-663
>> Invalid conclusion ontology
>>
>> 19. WebOnt-I5.5-003 (no status, no species indicator, both semantics)
>> not OWL 2 DL: the premise ontology talks about rdf:nil
>>
>> 20. WebOnt-someValuesFrom-001 (no species, no status)
>> I am not sure about this one. It seems the conclusion ontology is
>> messed up: it seems to want to use a blank node, but the RDF seems
>> incorrect to me. The test has an invalid namespace for the semantics.
>>
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 August 2009 22:24:48 GMT