- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:51:04 +0200
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 30 Jul 2009, at 21:54, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] >> As I recall, we talked about this under the subject of parser/ >> serializer >> conformance. Maybe my best bet is to make sure the two ontologies >> each >> entail each other.... Is that good enough? Is there anything >> simpler I >> can do? > > I think, that's a sufficient but also a necessary approach, at least > in > general (there may be special treatment for special scenarios). We had a big fuss about this a ways back. My strong viewis that it's neither necessary nor sufficient (as Sandro pointed out in his next message). In this particular case, I believe the two axioms were structurally equivalent. SE is not ideal but is *much* better than mutual entailment (the false positives are much easier to inspect). For your example, Sandro, there are several possible reactions: 1) Manual inspect (not hugely unreasonable, actually) 2) Report it as an annoying serialization bug (not becuase it doesnt conform, but because it's uboptimal) 3) Do a structural equivalence test. You could approximate the later in a lot of cases by, whenever a set appears in the UML, asking for a determinate sort on the serialization. Indeed, I suspect that that's what's happening here (Nothing being lexically prior to thing...easy enough to test). Hope this helps. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 20:51:39 UTC