W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

Re: test doc update

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:15:48 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF23CFFD43.34EF4CEA-ONC1256C40.0029A992-C1256C40.002D64D4@agfa.be>


> here is my latest effort.
>
> I sttill need to:
> - add text capturing your point about incomplete reasoners

right, that

Proof       EntailmentTest   | Reasoner
-----------------------------------------------------------
Found       Positive         | OK
Found       Negative         | NOT OK (unsound)
Not Found   Positive         | OK for *incomplete* reasoner
Not Found   Negative         | OK

thinking about Jim's cardinality tests I think
we can have a nice example of a consistency test
for maxCardinality, I will try that today
BUT what about minCardinality
wouldn't it make sense to have also a kind of
completeness test?
I know that this sounds dangerous, but how else
could one make sense of a minCardinality test?
I mean something like
  given these facts, is this complete w.r.t.
  that particular property (in this case
  minCardinality)

> - describe manifest file
> - sort out some problems to do with references
> - sort out some problems to do with some proposed tests
> - add manfiest entries for other tests on the web site
> - add at least one inconsistent test and at least one consistent test

right, I have some examples as well in
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-facts.n3
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-query.n3

> - the tests you described to the WG yesterday don't seem to be on the web

> site. Would you like me to RDF/XML ise them?

no, I have them here and I will check them in into w3ccvs
sorry about that, but I was confused...

> I have checked the files into CVS, but not onto my live server.

checked that out, is OK

> Given the deadline, could you look at this version and give me any
comments. I
> will send you a further update later today with an indication as to what
has
> changed.

I will start reading now...

> A specific question, see section B.1, do you agree with me (delete the
text)
> or Peter (who asked for this)? If the former I will change "Jeremy
disagrees"
> to "The editors disagree".

OK, jumped to that one and I agree with your text

> Also do you want a home page URL?

OK, take --------.
                 |
-- ,             v
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 04:16:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:23 GMT