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: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:39:18 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEAGCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Chris asked:
> I found Peter's alternative test case much easier to understand.  I
> couldn't make heads or tails of the one you originally posted.  This is
> likely because I don't understand the syntax you used.  While Peter's
> syntax was clearer to me, I don't know what variant that was.  Is there
> anything wrong with the test case Peter posted?  What do you call the
> syntactic style of it?

I take this to be contrasting the test of Peter's in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0002.html

with the test I suggested was very similar in

http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001
and
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions001


Peter's does include a minor XML error and should be corrected to say:

PREMISE

<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:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/prop" />
    <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/subject">
      <eg:prop>
	  <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object1" />
      </eg:prop>
      <eg:prop>
	  <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/object2" />
      </eg:prop>
    </owl:Thing>
</rdf:RDF>



This can be described as using the basic RDF/XML syntax with no relative
URIs.
We could decide that the tests should all be in such a subset.

Personally I am not keen, but I suspect its more that I have personal
investment in a baroque and indefensible syntax than any concrete reason. I
would be unhappy though if it were possible to support OWL and have only
very limited RDF/XML support.

I dislike the length of URIs, and prefer syntactic expressions that condense
them.

An alternative solution to the readability problem would be to automatically
generate a more readable form from the RDF/XML. This could be N-triple, or a
condensed N-triple (using qnames). I think the latter case would be best if
we decide to produce a test case document which includes the test cases
(rather than just links to the test cases).

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 12:40:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT