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

Re: Problems with OWL 1 tests

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:11:50 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0908040311v601b0dd0kce761382a3205951@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter, others,
all tests with status have already been fixed. Sometimes that meant
just correcting symbols (e.g., delete an extra >), sometimes missing
typing information has been added, and some tests have been declared
as OWL Full only. I tried to indicate that in brackets after the test.
We don't run tests without status, but if those tests should be
promoted to proposed status, we would have to go through them in more
detail and decide what to do (make them only applicable to RDF-Based
Semantics reasoners for example). In two places (No 15 and 17) I wrote
"conclusion is in OWL 2 DL", but meant "conclusion is NOT in OWL 2
DL". I believe No 18 (WebOnt-description-logic-663) had a
syntactically invalid conclusion ontology, but that has been fixed.
Test no 20 (WebOnt-someValuesFrom-001) cannot be used within the test
harness at the moment. It has, for example, DL as semantics, but
semantics should be either direct or rdf_based. Even if I fix that,
there are some other problems with the test meta data. If necessary, I
can spent some time on it and see how we can get this test to work and
analyse in more detail whether it should be applicable und direct
semantics or not.

2009/8/4 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> 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

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:12:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC