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

TEST: sameGuy: pls report results from software you develop/use

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 07 Mar 2002 13:39:26 -0600
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1015529967.3177.43.camel@dirk>
In our telcon today, I took an action
to provide a handful of tests, and
other folks took actions to try the
tests with their implementations (FaCT,
Euler, a prolog thingy, TRIPLE, Jena? ...)
and report back.

Ian, where are those FaCT/shiq tests?
I'll see if I can convert them to DAML+OIL.

Meanwhile, this sameGuy test is available
in two forms: in premise/conclusion form, we have:

  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyP.rdf
  v 1.2 2002/03/07 19:20:08
and
  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyC.rdf
  v 1.2 2002/03/07 19:19:22

Please ask your software to check that sameGuyC
follows from sameGuyP and let us know the results.

Or...

In consitency-check form, we have
the whole question in one file:

  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyQ.rdf
  v 1.1 2002/03/07 19:20:08

Please feed that to your engine and
tell me if it finds an inconsistency.
(It should.)

It occurs to me that not only is
the single-file consistency check
less of a tutorial/example, it also
exposes different forms of incompleteness.
For a complete reasoner, the two tests
look pretty much the same. But for
an incomplete reasoner, perhaps not.

My reasoner is incomplete. I had to tell
it a whole bunch more about DAML+OIL to
give me the relevant result about sameGuyQ
than I did for sameGuyP/sameGuyC.

Please let us know of any issues that arise
when you try to run this test with your software.

For example, in IRC, libby asked whether
query systems fit in somehow. I think that's
a good question. I'm interested in thoughts
on how to run this test in a query system.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:39:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT