Re: Possible incorrect test case (?)

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 19:45, Ian Horrocks<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> It isn't obvious to me why this wouldn't be an entailment under the
> RDF-Based semantics -- at least not at this time of night. Can you explain?

I was basing this on the conclusion we drew when discussing the test case

http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-Class-005

in January [1] -  that the definition of entailment in the OWL 1 Full
semantics and the OWL 2 RDF Based Semantics does not permit the
entailed ontology to use vocabulary not present in the premise
ontology. This led to the description in the Direct Semantics version
of the test

http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-Class-005-direct

At present, after digging some I cannot support this position with
text from the specifications.  It may be that we assumed it to hold
because the alternative was that the WebOnt group had incorrectly
labeled and approved these test cases.  I'm now leaning toward the
latter view.

Can someone more familiar with the OWL 1 Full and OWL 2 RDF-Based
semantics (e.g., Peter or Michael) refer to the text and come back
with a conclusive answer for the RDF-Based semantics versions of these
cases?

Thanks,
-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0031.html