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 11:48:39 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0908040348r547053bdi51e93bc060ed79bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi all,
I did some further analysis on test WebOnt-description-logic-663,
where I just said it has an invalid conclusion ontology. It is invalid
because the conclusion is missing its closing </rdf:RDF> tag. There
are also (new) problems with the test meta data and I will work with
Markus to get that fixed.
Birte

2009/8/4 Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>:
> 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.
> Birte
>
>
> 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
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283529
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:49:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:49:23 GMT