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

Re: Problems with OWL 1 tests

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 01:58:54 -0400
Message-ID: <20090804.015854.154125712.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
So what, if anything, needs to be done?  It appears that many of the
tests (now?) have correct status.

I concur with the conclusions below as far as I could check them (I did
check most), except for #18, where I cannot determine what is proposed.
Note two corrections in the reasoning, though.


From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Problems with OWL 1 tests
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:23:42 -0500

> Birte has very kindly compiled the appended list of OWL 1 tests that  
> were discovered to have problems.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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

** not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype .../data#type
The comment in the ontology is also rather strange.

> 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

I'm assuming that *not* is meant here, as rdf:rest is in the reserved
vocabulary and cannot be used as an object property in OWL 2 DL.

> 16. WebOnt-I5.8-016 (now OWL Full, only RDF-Based semantics)
> not OWL 2 DL: uses datatype data#type

And doesn't say that it is a datatype.

> 17. WebOnt-I5.5-001
> conclusion is in OWL 2 DL: asserts rdf:rest to be functional

See #15 above.

> 18. WebOnt-description-logic-663
> Invalid conclusion ontology

What does this mean?  Is the test a non-entailment?  The test suite
result for HermiT say the test is an entailment.

> 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.

This appears to be an attempt to test that OWL Full reasoners don't do a
very stupid thing that some OWL Full reasoner might want to do, namely
from 
	r <= E p c 
and 
	i in r
conclude
	p(i,c)

I don't see any blank node stuff in the conclusion, by the way.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 05:59:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 05:59:34 GMT