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

Re: Review of Web Ontology Language (OWL) Test Cases

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:23:15 +0100
To: nshimizu@green.ocn.ne.jp
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200301062223.15999.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Shimizu wrote:
>
>I am reviewing Web Ontology Language (OWL) Test Cases (Editors Working
>Draft 18 December 2002).
>I found some incorrect statements as follows.
>
>Comment 1.
>
>General discussion of related technology is welcome to www-rdf-logic@
>w3.org.

Changed.

>
>Comment 2.
>
>in 2.2.Conflict Resolution.
>
>If the OWL recommendation has passed Candidate Recommendation then:
>1.The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
>2.The working group, or its successors, considers the conflict
>3.While this happens the other recommendation documents take precedence
>over the test case.
>4.If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative
>and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s)
>then this is done.
>5.Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
>If the OWL recommendation has passed Candidate Recommendation then:
>1.The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
>2.The working group, or its successors, considers the conflict
>While this happens the other recommendation documents take precedence
>over the test case.
>1.If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative
>and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s)
>then this is done.
>2.Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.

Changed.

>
>Comment 3.
>
>in 4.Conformance(Normative).
>
>A system which claims complete OWL DL conformance MUST also be OWL DL
>conformant.A system which claims complete OWL Lite conformance MUST also
>be OWL Lite conformant.
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
>A system which claims complete OWL Full conformance MUST also be OWL DL
>conformant.A system which claims complete OWL DL conformance MUST also
>be OWL Lite conformant.

Not changed.
That wasn't what I was trying to say...

For each of Lite/DL I define two levels of conformance, one for general OWL 
systems and one for systems with reasoning componenents. For Full I don't 
define a reasoning level of conformance, since the WG did not want to endorse 
incomplete reasoning.

The text didn't work for you.

How about:

OLD TEXT
[[
 Reasoning components MAY claim complete OWL DL conformance [or complete OWL 
Lite conformance] if they provide complete reasoning over OWL DL [or OWL 
Lite]. i.e. A conformant complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner MUST find proofs for 
all OWL DL [Lite] inferences. A conformant complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner 
MAY find proofs for any OWL Full inference. A system which claims complete 
OWL DL conformance MUST also be OWL DL conformant.A system which claims 
complete OWL Lite conformance MUST also be OWL Lite conformant. 
]]

changing to
NEW TEXT
[[
An OWL DL conformant [or OWL Lite conformant] system with a reasoning 
component may claim complete OWL DL conformance [or complete OWL DL 
conformance] if it provides complete reasoning over OWL DL [or OWL Lite]. 
i.e.  a complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner MUST find proofs for all OWL DL 
[Lite] inferences. A complete OWL DL [Lite] reasoner MAY find proofs for any 
OWL Full inference.
]]
>
>Comment 4.
>
>in A.1.Creation.
>
>
>An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of some
>property or class in the OWL namespace).
>An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI as
>specified in the OWL issues list [OWL Issues]).

Changed.

>
>Comment 5.
>
>in B. Stylistic Preferences.
>
>There is a preference for the following stylistic rules. None of these
>rules
>is obligatory, but test authors should be minded that it will be easier to
>gain working group consensus if they follow these rules.

Changed

>
>Comment 6.
>
>in B.4. Use of example Domains.
>
>(e.g. http://www.example.org/ontology#prop")
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
>(e.g. "http://www.example.org/ontology#prop")

changed.

>
>Comment 7.
>
>in C. The Tests as Triples (Informative).
>
>prefices
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
>prefixes
>

changed.

>Comment 8.
>
>in C.2.1 Qualified Restrictions.
>
>"xmlns:eg="http://example.org/\27$B!I\27(B must be add to the test case 002 
of Illegal
>use of OWL namespace.
>

Still to do - but the change is to delete this unused prefix from tests 001 
and 003.

>Comment 9.
>
>in D.1.1. owl:FunctionalProperty.
>
>Statements of the conclusuion of test case 005 are incorrect.
>
><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
>xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/">
><owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object">
><rdf:type>
><owl:Restriction>
><owl:onProperty>
><owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
></owl:onProperty>
><owl:maxCardinality
>rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger"
>>1</owl:maxCardinality>
></owl:Restriction>
></rdf:type>
></owl:Thing>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\27$B!I\27(B
>xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#\27$B!I\27(B
>xmlns:eg="http://www.example.org/\27$B!I\27(B>
><owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop\27$B!I\27(B>
><rdf:type>
><owl:Restriction>
></owl:Restriction>
></rdf:type>
></owl:Thing>
><owl:onProperty>
><owl:FunctionalProperty 
rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop\27$B!I\27(B />
></owl:onProperty>
><owl:maxCardinality
>rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger\27$B!I\27(B
>>1</owl:maxCardinality>
></rdf:RDF>
>

Jos replied on this one.


>Comment 10.
>
>in D.1.5. owl:allValuesFrom.
>
>Statements of the Description of test case 002 are incorrect.
>
>See someValuesFrom.
>
>SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
>
>See allValuesFrom.
>

I need to add a hyperlink here - the intended comment is to link back to the 
corresponding allValuesFrom test, which contrasts with this test.
>
>Noboru Shimizu

Thanks again for the review.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 16:25:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT