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

Review of Web Ontology Language (OWL) Test Cases

From: shimizu <nshimizu@green.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:55:45 +0900
Message-ID: <3E113161.1020709@green.ocn.ne.jp>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I am reviewing Web Ontology Language (OWL) Test Cases (Editors Working
Draft 18 December 2002).
I found some incorrect statements as follows.

Comment 1.

in the Status of this document section.

General discussion of related technology is welcome in www-rdf-logic

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

General discussion of related technology is welcome to www-rdf-logic@
w3.org.

Comment 2.

in 2.2.Conflict Resolution.

If the OWL recommendation has passed Candidate Recommendation then:
1.The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
2.The working group, or its successors, considers the conflict
3.While this happens the other recommendation documents take precedence
over the test case.
4.If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative
and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s)
then this is done.
5.Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

If the OWL recommendation has passed Candidate Recommendation then:
1.The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
2.The working group, or its successors, considers the conflict
While this happens the other recommendation documents take precedence
over the test case.
1.If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative
and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s)
then this is done.
2.Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.

Comment 3.

in 4.Conformance(Normative).

A system which claims complete OWL DL conformance MUST also be OWL DL
conformant.A system which claims complete OWL Lite conformance MUST also
be OWL Lite conformant.

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

A system which claims complete OWL Full conformance MUST also be OWL DL
conformant.A system which claims complete OWL DL conformance MUST also
be OWL Lite conformant.

Comment 4.

in A.1.Creation.

An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of some
property or class in the OWL namespace.
An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI as
specified in the OWL issues list [OWL Issues].

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of some
property or class in the OWL namespace).
An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI as
specified in the OWL issues list [OWL Issues]).

Comment 5.

in B. Stylistic Preferences.

There is a preference for the following stylistic rules. None of these
rules
is obligatory, but test authors should be minded that it will be easier to
gain working gain group consensus if they follow these rules.

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

There is a preference for the following stylistic rules. None of these
rules
is obligatory, but test authors should be minded that it will be easier to
gain working group consensus if they follow these rules.

Comment 6.

in B.4. Use of example Domains.

(e.g. http://www.example.org/ontology#prop")

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

(e.g. "http://www.example.org/ontology#prop")

Comment 7.

in C. The Tests as Triples (Informative).

prefices

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

prefixes

Comment 8.

in C.2.1 Qualified Restrictions.

“xmlns:eg=”http://example.org/” must be add to the test case 002 of Illegal
use of OWL namespace.

Comment 9.

in D.1.1. owl:FunctionalProperty.

Statements of the conclusuion of test case 005 are incorrect.

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object">
<rdf:type>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty>
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
</owl:onProperty>
<owl:maxCardinality
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger"
>1</owl:maxCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:type>
</owl:Thing>
</rdf:RDF>

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=”http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#”
xmlns:owl =”http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#”
xmlns:eg=”http://www.example.org/”>
<owl:Thing rdf:about=”http://www.example.org/foo#prop”>
<rdf:type>
<owl:Restriction>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:type>
</owl:Thing>
<owl:onProperty>
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about=”http://www.example.org/foo#prop” />
</owl:onProperty>
<owl:maxCardinality
rdf:datatype=”http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger”
>1</owl:maxCardinality>
</rdf:RDF>

Comment 10.

in D.1.5. owl:allValuesFrom.

Statements of the Description of test case 002 are incorrect.

See someValuesFrom.

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

See allValuesFrom.


Noboru Shimizu

INTAP,
Bunkyo Green Court Center Office 13F,
28-8,Honkomagome 2-chome,
Bunkyo-Ku,
Tokyo 113-6591, Japan.
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 00:55:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT