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

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

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 17:34:07 +0000
Message-ID: <15498.18319.784758.383766@oaklands.demon.co.uk>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On March 7, Dan Connolly writes:
> 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.

Sent them Thursday night.

> 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.)

I wasn't able to do that for several reasons.

1. I can't deal with rdf:parseType="Resource"

2. I expect the ontology language namespace to be
   "http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#"

Even if I fix those things, there is a problem in that the inference
you are looking for seems to rely on an Unambiguous datatype property,
which isn't supported by the semantics. Moreover, the inference relies
heavily on individuals and literals and literals, which I currently
don't deal with (I am just doing class based reasoning).

Apart from that it should work :-)

Ian

> 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 Saturday, 9 March 2002 12:35:38 GMT

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