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: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030815.091549.65265431.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: test manifest file
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:17:09 +0100

> 
> >>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)

Well, there are documents that are in OWL DL but not in OWL Lite, so there
are lots of possible tests, but perhaps you don't have any of them.

It is the case that any entailment test that is in OWL Lite is also in OWL
DL.

> 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!)

What I would like to have is some sort of logically coherent story on what
the levels mean.  I don't think that there is (quite) one now.

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 09:17:18 GMT

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