Re: Test cases for approval

On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:

> just looked quickly over those, manual inspection...
>
>
> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass:
> > :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials
>
> looks ok to me.
>
> > :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer
>
> looks ok to me.
>
> > :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same
>
> looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be,
> potentially if you asked for
> "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?)
>

Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not
fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes
and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which
also makes testing relatively difficult.

As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-)

 Birte


> didn't look into the bind0x tests yet...
>
> Axel
>
> > as the same literal without
> > :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >
> > The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data
> > is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology.  The test :plainLit is
> > applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics.
> > Birte
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> > Computing Laboratory
> > Parks Road
> > Oxford
> > OX1 3QD
> > United Kingdom
> > +44 (0)1865 283520
> >
>
>


-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520