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

Re: Tests illustrating structure sharing

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:47:59 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD212C738.2A62A424-ONC1256D6E.008261EC-C1256D6E.0082BCDB@agfa.be>


That a lot of work Jeremy! you deserve a good holiday!

We did a quick test assuming that we PASS a test when:

a proof is found for a PositiveEntailmentTest
or no proof is found for a NegativeEntailmentTest seen as a
PositiveEntailmentTest
or a proof is found for an InconsistencyTest
or no proof is found for a ConsistencyTest seen as an InconsistencyTest
or a proof is found for an ImportEntailmentTest
or it is an ImportLevelTest
or a proof is found for an OWLforOWLTest
or it is a NotOwlFeatureTest


The results are:

                 tests       PASS       FAIL
--------------------------------------------
Lite                92         56         36

DL                  90         36         54

Full                86         68         18

--------------------------------------------
                   268        160        108


The detailed results are at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/temp/owl.txt

Have a nice vacation and family time!

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                       
                      Jeremy Carroll                                                                                                   
                      <jjc@hpl.hp.com>         To:       www-webont-wg@w3.org                                                          
                      Sent by:                 cc:                                                                                     
                      www-webont-wg-req        Subject:  Tests illustrating structure sharing                                          
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      2003-07-25 11:30                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       






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 19:48:09 GMT

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