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

Re: TEST draft message

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:01:55 -0800
Message-ID: <3C87AB13.96264CF1@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
this is a pointer to the test cases for cardinality for daml+oil that we
submitted to the daml ontology library.  it uses jtp to do its tests.

http://www.daml.org/ontologies/114

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> This message is a draft, for input from anyone else interested in testing,
> before a WOWG tagged message for tomorrows' conference.
>
> Jos can you fill in something about entailment tests; make any edits you
> feel are necessary to the rest, and repost it with a WOWG tag in the subject
> line.
>
> =====
>
> We propose that the test focus area should produce as their first
> deliverable to the working group a document that describes one or more test
> formats that will be useful for:
> - dicussing the properties of OWL
> - helping specify the properties of OWL
> - testing implementations of OWL
>
> Background:
> ===========
>
> The RDF Core WG has been using test cases for most of its existence.
>
> The standard RDF test is to assert that a particular RDF/XML file represents
> the same graph as an n-triple file.
> Typically both files are small.
> e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
> test002.rdf
> corresponds to
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
> test002.nt
>
> Such simple examples have great merit of:
> - being clear
> - being binary (yes or no)
>
> Thus they are useful for clarifying e-mail discussion.
> An example, more or less at random, see Option 2 in this e-mail:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0197.html
>
> [[[
>
> <rdf:Description>
>   <foo:bar xml:lang="en">foobar</foo:bar>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> becomes (please forgive the shorthand):
>
>   _:a <foo:bar>    _:b .
>   _:b <xml:lang>   "en" .
>   _:b <rdf:value> "foobar" .
>
> ]]]
>
> A shorthand syntax is used, we can either agree or disagree with this.
> (This example is not endorsed by the RDF Core WG).
>
> This year, a new test format has been being used. This is an entailment
> test.
>
> The test consists of a set of files that are the antecedents of an
> entailments, and a set of files that are the hypothetical consequences.
>
> The test is again binary: does the entailment hold or not.
>
> JOS - PLEASE ADD A FORMAL EXAMPLE.
>
> An example of how such a test is useful in WG discussion is from the fairly
> heated datatyping discussion. The chair summarized many strongly felt issues
> as simple entailments. This reduced the emotional heat.
>
> For example, in a summary message:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0040.html
>
> of the nine or ten disputed issues three are expressed as entailments:
> Issue B4, Issue B9 and Issue B10.
>
> So, test cases are not a panacea (six or seven of those issues were not
> expressed as test cases), but they are helpful.
>
> Another part of RDF Core's (ongoing) work is the specification of a manifest
> file, that lists all the tests, their type and their status.
>
> JOS - could you add a pointer to the e-mail log for the manifest file
> please?
>
> =================
>
> How's that look?
>
> Jeremy

--
 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 Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:41:51 GMT

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