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

Re: TEST: harder DL tests (3 SAT)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:36:52 +0000
Message-ID: <3E5F3BC4.7090300@hpl.hp.com>
To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Sean,

I have taken the slot for DL tests numbered 500-599 and for 900-999.
I will leave 200-299, 300-399, 400-499 for any further sets of tests you want.
I will take 600-699 for an OWL Lite variation on some of the tests you have 
already submitted.
(All your tests were OWL DL - to make them OWL Lite requires work).

Jeremy

PS: I added some insignificant newlines into your tests, and will add a few 
more, to make them format better.

I am just updating the download.tgz file.

Sean Bechhofer wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Sean's Tests
>>==========
>>I have added Sean's tests - one question for Sean or Ian in
>>http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#dl-000-satisfiability-025
>>The description reads:
>>[[
>>DL Test: t5f.1 Non-finite model example from paper The concept should be
>>coherent but has no finite model
>>]]
>>Which paper? I will add it to the references.
>>(These are a great addition)
>>
> 
> Ian? This was a comment from the original lisp format....
> 
> 
>>OWL Lite and UnionOf
>>==================
>>
>>I have also added Ian's example from
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0401.html
>>which is found in 6 tests under:
>>
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#proposedIssue-I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels
>>
>>I note that many of Sean's tests can be reformulated as OWL Lite tests using
>>Ian's techniques, and I hope to do that (copying the tests into a new
>>subsection "Harder OWL Lite Tests")
>>
> 
> Yes. I didn't attempt to make any distinction between DL/Lite.
> 
> 
>>3 SAT and individuals
>>==================
>>
>>I was a little worried at the lack of exercise for the distinctive DL feature
>>of individuals as well as classes and properties; I am also not convinced
>>that Sean's tests adequately exercised the OWL DL cardinality constructs.
>>
> 
> The tests I submitted this week were the basic reasoning tests that I've
> been using for some regression testing and that were already in roughly
> the right format. There are also a number of test problems from the DL98
> systems comparison exercise [1] which we should be able to use. Some of
> these involve A-box (individual) reasoning and the application KB tests
> also use cardinality restrictions, although a quick glance suggests that
> in the main they're of the form atmost 1/atleast 1. I'll make a stab at
> converting those into OWL tests too.
> 
> 	Sean
> 
> [1] http://dl.kr.org/dl98/comparison/data.html
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 05:37:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT