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

Re: TEST: 2 of 7 : issue 5.3

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:41:01 +0100
Message-ID: <16159.39837.123357.577114@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

On July 23, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> 
> general interest? Ian, DanC, Jos

Looks OK to me.

Ian

> 
> The updates for the change to the resolution of issue 5.3 are as follows:
> 
> New third para in section 3
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/#testTypes
> 
> 
> [[
> The metadata also indicates the language levels appropriate for each test and 
> each document in each test. For each RDF/XML document, one language level is 
> indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full, as given by the syntactic 
> rules in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. For semantic tests, one or two 
> language levels are indicated. If the language level OWL Full is indicated 
> for a semantic test, then the test holds according to the RDF-Compatible 
> Model-Theoretic Semantics in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. If the 
> language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a semantic test, then the 
> test holds according to the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics in [OWL 
> Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. If the language level OWL Lite is indicated 
> for a semantic test, then the test only uses features within the OWL Lite 
> sublanguage. 
> ]]
> 
> 4.1.2
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/#consistencyConformance
> 
> concerted the following from defining one concept 'consistent' to defining two 
> concepts 'OWL DL consistent' and 'OWL Full consistent':
> [[
>  An OWL Lite or OWL DL document D is OWL DL consistent with respect to a 
> datatype theory T if and only if there is some abstract OWL interpretation I 
> with respect to T such that I satisfies an abstract ontology O equivalent to 
> D, in which O has a separated vocabulary; (see [OWL Semantics and Abstract 
> Syntax]). 
> 
> An OWL Full document D is OWL Full consistent with respect to a datatype 
> theory T, if and only if there is some OWL Full interpretation I with respect 
> to T such that I satisfies all the RDF graphs in some imports closed 
> collection containing an RDF graph equivalent to D. 
> ]]
> 
> 4.2.2
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/#consistencyChecker
> added new para
> [[
> An OWL consistency checker MUST provide a means to determine the model theory 
> [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], it uses (either the Direct 
> Model-Theoretic Semantics or the RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics); 
> for example, in its supporting documentation. 
> ]]
> 
> 
> clarified which semantics each consistency checker should use
> [[
> An OWL Lite consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an 
> OWL Lite document as input, and uses the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
> 
>  An OWL DL consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an OWL 
> DL document as input and uses the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics. 
> 
> An OWL Full consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an 
> OWL Full document as input and uses the RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic 
> Semantics. 
> ]]
> 
> modified note
> [[
> Note: An OWL Full consistency checker may indicate that an OWL DL document is 
> inconsistent, while an OWL DL consistency checker indicates that the same 
> document is consistent, (for example: compare test 
> Thing-001 with Thing-002 or
> compare AnnotationProperty-001> with <AnnotationProperty-002).
> . Every OWL DL consistency checker is also an OWL Lite consistency checker. 
> ]]
> 
> section 5.2
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/#runningConsistencyChecker
> Added to first para
> [[
>  The level of the test indicates the semantic theory being used, which may 
> differ from the level of the file. For example, test Thing-001 contains an 
> OWL DL file which is consistent as an OWL DL consistency test, but 
> inconsistent as an OWL Full consistency test. 
> ]]
> 
> Deleted OWL DL or OWL Lite from the following ...
> [[
> An OWL Full consistency checker with appropriate datatype support, when 
> presented with a file from an OWL Full, **OWL DL or OWL Lite** consistency 
> test, must return Consistent or Unknown. 
> ]]
> 
> section 6
> minor changes
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/#manifest
> [[
> The conformance levels associated with both files and tests are given with the 
> otest:level property. The value for each document is one of otest:Full, 
> otest:DL, otest:Lite or otest:Other. Each test is explicitly associated with 
> one or two levels.
> If it is associated with otest:Lite then it
> is implicitly suitable for otest:DL.
> ]]
> 
> I also added the following tests (as actioned)
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Thing-001
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Thing-002
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#AnnotationProperty-001
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#AnnotationProperty-002
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 04:42:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT