W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:39:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3CBD973A.CCB4E046@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
just a reminder - we wrote an example test suite in daml+oil that just addressed cardinality.
it is up on the daml ontology library - http://www.daml.org/ontologies/114

they may be useful in the test suite generation work on cardinality.

deborah

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> I attach test cases for the qualified cardinality constraints which we have
> agreed are not part of OWL.
>
> I ask that the chairs schedule time in a telecon to discuss the following
> proposal:
>
> I propose:
>
> [[[
>
> The WebOnt WG:
> - approves the error test cases showing that qualified cardinality
> constraints are not part of OWL.
> - actions Dan Connolly to arrange a test repository on the http://www.w3.org
> site
> - actions Dan Connolly to arrange direct CVS access for appropriate members
> of the test focus area to that repository
> - actions Jeremy Carroll to update the repository to include the approved
> qualified cardinality constraint test cases.
>
> Moreover, the WG assigns to the test focus area responsibility for
> maintaining the approved test cases in light of future changes made to OWL
> by the WG (for example, the assignment of an appropriate namespace).
>
> ]]]
>
> Jeremy
>
> For convenience I show error001.owl inline here, with a blow-by-blow
> breakdown (in **s):
>
> ***START BOILER PLATE***
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
>
> <!--
>   Copyright World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
>   Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en
>   Automatique, Keio University).
>
>   All Rights Reserved.
>
>   Please see the full Copyright clause at
>   <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html>
>
> ***END BOILER PLATE***
>   Description: A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not
>                legal OWL.
>   Author: Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hpl.hp.com)
>
> -->
>
> *** For now we use the DAML+OIL namespace,
>    this is separated out here for easy maintenance
>    when the WG agrees on the OWL namespace URI.
>    Of course, this means that right now this test case
>    is actually false. This is a legal DAML+OIL document!
> ***
> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF
>
>    <!ENTITY owl "http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#">
> ]>
>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>          xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
>          xmlns:owl="&owl;"
>     >
>
> *** A minimal example, that is legal DAML+OIL but not legal OWL. ***
>
>    <owl:Restriction owl:cardinalityQ="1">
>       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
>       <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
>    </owl:Restriction>
>
> </rdf:RDF>
>
> *** END ***
>
> error002 is just like error001 but with a max cardinality constraint.
> error003 is just like error001 but with a min cardinality constraint.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                             Name: qualified-cardinality-constraints.zip
>    qualified-cardinality-constraints.zip    Type: Zip Compressed Data (application/x-zip-compressed)
>                                         Encoding: base64

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 11:44:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT