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

Tests illustrating structure sharing

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:30:15 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200307260030.15497.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I have added a number of tests to illustrate the constraints on the use of 
bnodes corresponding to restrictions and descriptions in both the CR design 
and the alternative design.

This message assumes that the CR note about the at risk feature would indicate 
that "some details of the mapping rules are at risk of change to an alternate 
design allowing structure sharing" or words to that effect. (" ... given 
insufficient positive implementor feedback on the current design ...")
The alternative design advocated by some members of the WG (i.e. at least me!) 
would result in the following test changes.

The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests of 
OWL Full files, to being OWL Lite and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL 
Lite files:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-002
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-003

The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests of 
OWL Full files, to being OWL DL and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL DL 
files:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-006
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-008
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-001
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-002
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-003
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-005

The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Lite or OWL DL):

http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-001
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#equivalentClass-009
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-003
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-005
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-007
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-009

The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Full):
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-006

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 18:30:39 GMT

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