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

Re: test manifest file

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:17:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3F3C88F5.1000303@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org


>>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, I'm still not sure what this level means then.  I have taken it that
> the syntactic level of a file was the minimum OWL level at which the file
> was syntactically valid.  I view all the NotOWLFeatureTest files as being
> syntactically valid OWL Full, as even
> 
> 	owl:foobar rdf:type rdfs:Class .
> 	owl:foobar owl:minCardinalityQ "ss" .
> 
> is a valid OWL Full ontology.  Admittedly it doesn't make much sense, but
> this doesn't make it syntactically invalid.



Correct - and the tests I believe are marked up with that perspective.

> 
> 
>>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.
>>
> 
> Again, what does Lite as a level mean here?  I've taken the level of
> tests to be the most-constraining level at which the test makes sense.  
> 
> So for NotOWLFeatureTest, Full is incorrect, as the files are in OWL Full.
> Lite, by itself is also incorrect, as the files are not just invalid in OWL
> Lite, but also in OWL DL, and syntactic invalidity in OWL Lite does not
> imply syntactic invalidity in OWL Full.
> 
> 
>>The change that I would be happiest with is simply removing the level of the
>>test.
>>
> 
> I think that this would be incorrect.
> 
> 
>>Jeremy
>>
> 
> There are, I think, two defensible stances to take on the level property.
> The first would be as above - that the level is the tightest one at which
> the file is syntactically valid, or the test is valid.  The second stance
> would be to use all levels instead of just the tightest one.  
> 
> The second stance is easier for automated tools to handle as they don't
> need to understand in which direction the levels loosen for the particular
> tests.  However, it would require changing many or most of the manifest
> files to make the implicit levels explicit.
> 
> peter
> 

I have already had to do that with OWL Full, since OWL Full semantics 
differs from OWL DL, hence you are suggesting I should also mark all OWL 
Lite tests as also OWL DL (I cannot conceive of an OWL Lite test that is 
not applicable in OWL DL - at least not of the test types that we have)

I could do that, but would prefer not to - I would like to see your 
proposal with further support before doing this.
(The actual amount of work is quite small (2hrs), I have got quite adept at 
Unix scripts to edit all the manifests in a regular fashion!)

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 03:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT