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

Re: TEST review copy

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 17:20:35 -0400
Message-Id: <200305092120.h49LKZmD022891@roke.hawke.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


> >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/

I've read through the prose; my comments are below.  I'm starting to
look at the packaging and try using the tests, but I'm not sure how
far I'll get with that.

For brevity my comments sometimes say "do FOO" when of course I mean
"I think you and/or the WG should consider doing FOO."

    -- sandro

================================================================

> at the time of its publication. ther documents may supersede
                                  ^ "O"

> We seek reports from implementators concerning both errors in the
> tests and successful execution of these tests, both proposed and
> approved. The tests are still in development. and are being
> changed. during the last call review period, up to the publication of
> the corresponding Proposed Recommendation. 

Some typos, but also it's pretty, um, awkward.  How about:

We plan to keep improving these tests until they are published as a
Proposed Recommendation.  Please let us know (at the comments address
below) if you find any errors.  We would also appreciate a note
describing your experience with these tests if you have developed an
OWL implementation.

> to which this document is subsiduary. 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^  subsidiary

Does that mean that if the documents disagree, the other one is
correct?

> However, the test cases do not constitute a conformance test suite
> for OWL. 

Clarify?  Perhaps by adding something like: "... since they are silent
on several important issues.  This document cannot be considered a
complete specification of OWL."

>  for the larger tests, by reference to the test Web site.

Has that practice been affirmed by the Comm team?

> 2.1.  Normative Status
> Of the deliverables the only normative tests are those included in
> this document. All other deliverables, are informative.  
                                       ^ extra comma

This seems to disagree with what I quote above, "The recommendation
track document, which normatively includes the tests, either
explicitly or, for the larger tests, by reference to the test Web
site." 

> Each test consists of either one or more RDF/XML documents and a
                        ^^^^^^  extra word

> The datatypes xsd:integer, xsd:string from [XML Schema Datatypes]
> are not indicated, even when used or required.  

   + "because their theories are a part of OWL" (or something)

> the rest have names beginning supportNNN.rdf.

names _like_ supportNNN.rdf ?   

> 4.2.1. Syntax Checker

It seems odd to say each program outputs one word and may also output
warnings.   Describe stdout & stderr?  :-)


> An OWL consistency checker MUST return Consistent only when the
> input document is consistent and Inconsistent only when the input
> document is not consistent (this property is usually called
> soundness).  

It took me a while to connect "this property" with its referrent.  How
about:

   An OWL consistency checker MUST be <em>sound</em>: it MUST return
   Consistent only when the input document is consistent and
   Inconsistent only when the input document is not consistent 


>  otherwise it is complete
                   ^ you mean "incomplete"

>   It has been shown that ...

This needs a footnote/link, but I don't know where the proof is.

For instance, I'm having a hard time believing OWL full doesn't have a
FOL axiomatization.... 

> Every OWL Lite consistency checker can be trivially transformed into
> an OWL Full consistency checker.  

This is just talking about outputting "Unknown" as mentioned two lines
down, right?  If so, then please drop this sentence from this
paragraph, where it is horribly confusing.

> Note: Complete OWL DL consistency checkers and Complete OWL Lite
> consistency checkers MAY return Unknown on an OWL DL document or OWL
> Lite document in the case where a resource limit has been exceeded.  

How is a testing framework going to live with this?  I'd think they'd
need to return "ResourceLimitExceeded".

> A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL
> consistency checker should not return Unknown  
                      ^^^^^^^^^^  MUST NOT


> These tests are ones that are either known from the literature (for
> instance, from [Heinsohn et al.]), or from test suites contributed
> by Network Inference.  
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     make that a link, or something?
           
[ both the Normative and Informative sections ]

>  2. Bag ID.

I think you can remove that bit, now.

> any that do gain extra credit. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   this bit made me laugh, 
it's probably not necessary or appropriate.

But I love the test itself, and can't wait to try to pass it!

...

The test website itself needs some cleanup, but I guess that's a
different job.
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 19:21:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT