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

Re: test manifest file

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030811.072228.74174348.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I am still uncertain as to just what the information in the test manifest
file means, so I would appreciate a short description of the various
classes, properties, and values.  I was just trying to find what the
various values for approved status were, and could not find them.

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: test manifest file
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:19:32 +0200

> Every test of one file has two associated levels (often the same).
> One of these is the syntactic level of the file, the other is the 'level'
> (typically semantic) of the test. Really for the NotOWLFeatureTest both of
> these are redundant, and perhaps silence would be the best path.

No.  I don't see anything in these files that make them not be in OWL Full,
so silence would be misleading.  

> Something that uses owl:foobar is normally syntactically not in OWL Lite or
> OWL DL (although I suppose we could have a test that was e.g.
> 
> owl:foobar rdf:type owl:Class .
> 
> )
> 
> Thus for all the tests we currently have the syntactic level of the file is
> given as OWL Full. I take Peter to not have difficulties with this.

Well, as I don't really know what level is supposed to mean I don't really
know, all I can do is make guesses.

> The level of the test is then a bit moot.
> I put "Lite" on the grounds that I would expect an OWL Lite consistency
> checker to recognise that this was not an OWL feature and to produce a
> warning message.

Well, again this depends on what level means.  My view is that here it
should mean that the test is suitable for a tool that checks syntactic
correctness for that level.  If this is the case then Lite is not wrong,
but then an OWL DL syntactic checker has no business looking at the test
(and mine doesn't) as something that is not in Lite might be in DL.

> The change that I would be happiest with is simply removing the level of the
> test.

This would be wrong unless there was explicit wording that the
NotOWLFeature tests were meant to be tests of conformance to OWL DL
syntax.  However, I would still vote to put a test level of DL in for these
tests.

> Jeremy

peter


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F.
> > Patel-Schneider
> > Sent: 08 August 2003 21:30
> > To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: test manifest file
> >
> >
> >
> > The test manifest file appears to have the wrong levels for the
> > NotOwlFeatureTest tests.  They are given level Lite.  However, they should
> > be given level DL or, maybe, both Lite and DL, as not being in DL implies
> > not being in Lite, but not vice versa.
> >
> > peter
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 07:22:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT