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

Re: Fwd: OWL Test Cases and Species Validation

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:52:47 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f25bb7257435625@[68.27.191.174]>
To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

I'm breaking my reply to Sean into two parts - this one about the 
owl:imports test, a separate one (echoing Jeremy) on the blank nodes 
in the intersection


>In the premises document, the triple:
>
><rdf:Description rdf:about=''>
>  <owl:imports 
>rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/support001-A"/>
></rdf:Description>
>
>uses owl:imports without explicitly saying that the URI to which it
>applies is an owl:Ontology. Thus we are in Full.


I think we have room for improvement here - Mike, who is very up on 
our documents, naturally assumed that the reason this test was in 
full had to do with the imports, not with the missing owl:Ontology 
statement.  As a result, he was assuming that he had missed something 
in how imports works.

I can see two easy fixes:
  1 - add the owl:ontology statement into this example and call this a Lite test
  2 - leave this test as it is, but add another test that is exactly 
the same except adds the owl:ontology statement (and is thus in Lite)

I would strongly advocate the latter - this would make need for 
owl:Ontology in an imports clear, and it would make it clear that the 
imported stuff DOES need to be considered by a species checker (this 
was the confusion caused by the current test alone).

Jeremy, Jos - what do you think of adding a new test that mirrors 
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest001 but adds the 
owl:Ontology statement per Sean's message above -- would be an easy 
additional test, and would clarify a couple of subtleties in the OWL 
design.
  -JH
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 10:58:32 GMT

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