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

Re: Tests

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:34:22 +0200
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6F0943F.82263371-ONC1256D18.0074152F-C1256D18.007680E9@agfa.be>


On April 30, Ian Horrocks writes:
> On April 29, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/
>
> Sorry - I was working from the working draft rather than the editor's
draft.
>
> >
> > The associated Manifest with that is up to date.
> > I will regenerate the zip files, (approved.zip and proposed.zip in the
> > directory
> >  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/
> >
> > 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
> > message:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0073.html
> >
> > 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

OK for that one

> > 2: unapprove
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest004
> > and at some point I will recast as a Lite/DL test rather than Full
> >
> > Ian please can you verify
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest004
>
> Done. I can report success with this test and also with
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest005
>
> >
> > since Jos has withdrawn his endorsement.
> > It would be good to have a list of more tests to approve before last
call -
>
> I am working on it. As I mentioned in another email, the NI team also
> have lots of results from Cerebra.

I saw that you found it OK now, so there is no need to unapprove ;-)
Very glad to hear about positive results!

> > Jos reports success on:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest006
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest008
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest009
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest011

Yes Jeremy, at that time, but we now just
don't test anymore on pure Lite and DL level
(and that testing is now in appropriate hands)

> > Ian reports success on
> >
> > <description-logic/Manifest001#test>
> > <description-logic/Manifest002#test>
> > <description-logic/Manifest003#test>
> > <description-logic/Manifest004#test>
> > <description-logic/Manifest005#test>
> >
> > <description-logic/Manifest105#test>
> > <description-logic/Manifest106#test>

That is good news!
I'm glad to go for APPROVED.

> > (The 900 ones are true but not what was intended, if I have understood
> > correctly, so need fixing).
>
> 902 and 904 actually fail because the entailment should not hold.


(I believe that hard work is good news and vice versa)


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 17:34:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT