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 23:24:39 +0100
Message-Id: <E8D9A3A2-7667-48CB-B25D-057F22065B35@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Date: 3 August 2009 20:49:43 BDT
> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL1.1 Chairs"  
> <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Problems with OWL 1 tests
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Pellet is wrong because it does not yet handle blank nodes/anonymous
> individuals correctly. I submitted a very detailed explanation to
> Mike&Markus who maintain the test suit. If you want, I can send that
> explanation to you or to the list.
>
>> 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)
>
> It really is due anonymous individuals. Pellet works very well for
> most entailments, but for anonymous individuals you have to implement
> some kind of rolling-up procedure that eliminates the blank nodes. In
> order to do that, you have to look at all axioms that refer to the
> anonymous individual and related individuals. Pellet at the moment (as
> far as I am aware) decides entailment axiom by axiom and tests concept
> satisfiability of the concept :C if it find ClassAssertion(:C _:a).
>
>> 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.
>
> I will forward my detailed explanation to the list then and this is
> quite a lot of work to do by hand, which is why I prefer tests that
> just test features and not tests that load ontologies with ~800 axioms
> in it and several entailments. It took me quite a while to figure out
> what is responsible for the (non)entailment.
>
> Birte
>
>>
>>    -- 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.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 August 2009 22:25:24 GMT