Thanks, in the discussion of dl-668 it was hypothesised that the test was wrong, having been derived from the faulty dl-208, more on that later. Jeremy Evren Sirin wrote: > > > Agenda for TEST subgroup meeting > ... > > 6: Test with 1 pass > > overview and discussion > ... > > - hard dl tests > > dl-666 > > dl-668 > > I want to share the experience we had with our reasoner Pellet on these > test cases (dl-66x in general). Pellet cannot pass these test cases > right now. The ontologies in these test cases were originally OWL DL and > then a script converted the files to OWL Lite in a way that makes > reasoning really very hard for us (There are too many GCI's that we > cannot absorb). Since OWL Lite does not have complementOf, the script > creates two restrictions to define complement relation. Knowing how the > script worked, I've written another script that does the reverse > transformation. For example, the following description > > Class(a:C10 complete restriction(b:P.16 maxCardinality(0))) > Class(a:C10.comp complete restriction(b:P.16 minCardinality(1))) > > is converted back to something like this > > Class(a:C10) > Class(a:C10.comp complementOf(a:c10)) > > After this transformation, these test cases become trivial for Pellet. > We still don't report success for these test cases but we know that we > can pass any dl-66x test after this transformation and believe they are > all ok. I thought this information would help the discussion about these > test cases. > > Evren > > --- > >> Evren Sirin evren@cs.umd.edu >> Graduate Research Assistant >> Computer Science Department >> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 >> Phone: (301) 405-7027, Fax: (301) 405-6707 > > > > > >Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 04:28:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:44 GMT