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

Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:51:08 +0200
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200209022051.08283.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> A much better test would be:
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>         xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
>    <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/prop" />
>   <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/subject">
>      <http://www.example.org/prop>
>         <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object1" />
>      </http://www.example.org/prop>
>      <http://www.example.org/prop>
>          <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object2" />
>     </http://www.example.org/prop>
>    </owl:Thing>
><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>         xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
>    <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object1">
>     <owl:sameIndividualAs>
>       <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object2" />
>     </owl:sameIndividualAs>
>  </owl:Thing>

The previously accepted test was very like that:


<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
  xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001" >
    <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/>
    <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject">
      <this:prop rdf:resource="#object1" />
      <this:prop rdf:resource="#object2" />


<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
  xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions001" >
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#object1">
      <owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="premises001#object2" />

Differences I see are:
- I use a greater variety of RDF/XML than you do
- you choose to use a number of owl:Thing's
  (these may prove a significant difference in the light of Pat's work)

I thought it worth for both FunctionalProperty and InverseFunctionalProperty 
to show one test that was semantically simple by relying on sameIndividualAs 
and one test that was simple from a layering on RDF point of view by only 
using one owl feature.

> PS:  Given that you have agreed that there are mistakes in the tests, are
> you going to propose that they be unapproved?

Hmmm ...
(that could have done with a smiley !)
I think we have identified a very minor mistake in the xml:base, in that it 
does not impact the graph; and we have been discussing the style of the 
wording of the descriptions.
For both I would tend to view these as within the remit of editorial fixes 
that need to be notified to the group but not subject to a revote.

I take your criticism of a lack of a documented process seriously. Without 
that it is not clear how much editorial leeway there should be, nor who 
should exercise it.

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 14:52:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC