W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

ACTION-497 completed: checked coverage of entailment tests

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 21:56:18 +0200
Message-Id: <51CE8870-CF3C-4F29-A8CC-F0D2B37C1BAB@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I did some (superficial) scan of caverage through the entailment test cases and added this at:

		 4 test cases in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/
	 RDFS (didn't check coverage of RDFS constructs)
		 13 test cases in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/
		  !! only 1 test case in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/
	 OWL Direct (didn't check coverage of OWL constructs)
		 3 test cases in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/
		 8 test cases for BIND
	 OWL RDF based
		  !! only 1 test case in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/

Not covered:
		 We have a test for rdf:_n occuring in the data (:rdf02), but should also have the other way around, ie. asking for an _:n not appearing in the data as a negative test
		 It seems we have no tests checking axiomatic triples in the query pattern, do we? Something like the following query against the empty dataset (Likewise, for other entailment regimes and their sets of axiomatic triples.
  ASK { rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:predicate rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:object rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:first rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:rest rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:value rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:_1 rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:_2 rdf:type rdf:Property .
        rdf:nil rdf:type rdf:List . }

	 D-Ent seems to miss some standard datatype map test case, such as
  data:  :s :p: "1"^^xsd:integer .
  query: ASK {:s :p: "1.0"^^xsd:decimal .}
 or alike.
	 OWL Direct-Semantics: ???
	 OWL RDF-based semantics seems not covered.
	 RIF seems not covered at all (we could probably look into RIF test cases)
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 19:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC