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

RE: implementation report for DL syntax checker

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:49:02 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0308111017130.640-100000@potato>

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Peter:
> > I wrote an OWL DL syntax checker from the CR version of S&AS
> > and ran it over all the OWL tests.
> Congrats!
> >
> > The checker was run on all files in accepted tests that were marked as
> > being in OWL Lite or OWL DL or not being in OWL DL.
> How did you do on the proposed tests - the ones that have not yet been
> successfully checked by any system are those added for the "feature at risk"
> in the CR request. It would be good to know whether I got those right or
> not.
> > I didn't run the
> > checker on files marked as not being in OWL Lite --- these are probably
> > also not in OWL DL, but this is not inferrable from the test manifest.
> >
> I am not sure what you mean - the intent is that each file mentioned in the
> manifest is labelled as Lite DL or Full. The test itself may have a
> different label, but that's typically more aimed at the syntactic checking.
> > The only mistakes that the checker made were on
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent001 and
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent002 where the
> > underlying XML engine that I am using (Galax) choked.  I expect to get a
> > new version of Galax next week and will see if these are then correctly
> > processed.
> >
> There was an XML error in those two files that Sean reported off-list, and
> has now been fixed.

I think there's still a problem in these two (assuming my validator is
working properly :-). The source of test consistent001 has an xmlns of
http://www.w3.org/.../miscellaneous/consistent001# which means that some
of the properties and individuals that are used in consistent002 (e.g.
wine:hasBody, wine:hasSugar, wine:hasFlavor, wine:hasColor, wine:Dry,
wine:Sweet etc. etc.) haven't actually been defined properly (e.g. no
ObjectProperty type triple for the properties). So they're not then in DL.

Did the problem with I5.2/premiseoo6 get on the list of needed fixes? The
definition of notAorB makes reference to "notB" rather than "#notB", which
means that the supposed entailment doesn't actually hold....

BTW we are now quite close to producing a reasoner that will passed over
90% of the DL (in)consistency and positive entailment tests. Pictures at



Sean Bechhofer
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 06:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC