W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Tests

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:51:15 +0300
To: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304292251.15231.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Thanks Ian

one point is that you seem to be looking at some old data ....

the editors draft has all the syntactic fixes in, including the two you 
correctly raise 


The associated Manifest with that is up to date.
I will regenerate the zip files, (approved.zip and proposed.zip in the 

they are ever so slightly old (22nd Apr)

The files on the web are always up to date
i.e. the raw data is the files retrievable from the URLs.

Concerning that a lot of the tests are OWL Full - I am aware that coverage is 
needed - the goal is for each of the features to minimally have two tests for 
Lite (if applicable), two for DL and two for Full. This is really only 
achieved for a handful of features. Many of the full tests are fairly early 
before it was even vaguely clear what being in Lite or DL meant.

Thanks a lot for the input on the cardinality tests, with that and with Jos's 


and the other discussion of cardinality-005 on rdf-logic I suggest we:

1: unapprove cardinality test 005, and propose it as a non-entailment

2: unapprove 
and at some point I will recast as a Lite/DL test rather than Full

Ian please can you verify

since Jos has withdrawn his endorsement.
It would be good to have a list of more tests to approve before last call - 
Jos reports success on:

Ian reports success on



(The 900 ones are true but not what was intended, if I have understood 
correctly, so need fixing).


Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 16:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC