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

Re: Another E-Mail VOTE (again with Monday deadline)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:24:59 +0100
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF10A1B957.1BDEA8FB-ONC1256DEC.004849BF-C1256DEC.0049B2B6@agfa.be>


As AGFA representative:
YES

As editor:
Jeremy definitely took the lead
I follow

As developer:
still haven't seen independent evidence
that miscellaneous-010 is OK as test case
but also no evidence that it is wrong
(and that since many weeks)

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


                                                                                                                                       
                      "Jeremy Carroll"                                                                                                 
                      <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.        To:       <www-webont-wg@w3.org>                                                        
                      com>                     cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Another E-Mail VOTE (again with Monday deadline)                              
                      www-webont-wg-req                                                                                                
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      2003-11-28 11:53                                                                                                 
                      AM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       






Apologies for the lateness, but the information this week [1] that we
cannot
go on approving tests after PR (except as a result of new input), means
that
the last twenty remaining tests need to be resolved before the request to
advance goes out on Monday.

Also I detected that we have not fully implemented the decision about OWL
Full nonentailments being EXTRACREDIT tests.

thanks

Jeremy

===

I PROPOSE that we approve, obsolete or approve as extracredit all remaining
proposed tests as detailed below; reclassify all APPROVED OWL Full
nonentailments and consistency tests as EXTRACREDIT (as detailed [2], [3]
yesterday); obsolete Thing-002 and modify oneof-004 as noted below.

As before this is an e-mail vote, with deadline on Monday, (I suggest
midday
US West Coast, i.e. 8pm Greenwich, 9 pm in Paris, 3 pm Boston, as the
deadline - it gives me long enough to upload the changes before bedtime and
should give as many US members a chance to consider this as possible -
could
a chair please ratify the deadline)

Please reply YES, ABSTAIN, or NO
(I guess NO's could be qualified by specific test approvals you vote
against, if you are generally in favour of the package)

====

Summary:
Approve  12 tests
Approve 5 tests as extracredit
Obsolete 3 proposed tests
Obsolete 1 approved tests
Modify 1 approved test


Details  (footnotes indicated [a,b,c] thus)
(Note you may need to regenerate the results page, and read the footnotes,
to get the number of passes claimed!)



TWICE PASSED TESTS - For Approval:
Thing-003   [a]
description-logic-208
Thing-004
Thing-005 [b]
imports-014
Restriction-006
someValuesFrom-001
description-logic-909

SMALLER ONCE PASSED TESTS - For Approval
I5.3-014 [b]

LARGER ONCE PASSED TESTS - For Approval
description-logic-209 [d]
miscellaneous-010 [d]
miscellaneous-011 [d]

ONCE PASSED for EXTRACREDIT
AnnotationProperty-004 [a,e]
I5.5-007  [b,e]

Dull Tests - for OBSOLETE
These tests have not been (much) discussed during last call or CR:

cardinality-005
description-logic-666
description-logic-668

Superceded (approved) test for OBSOLETE
Thing-002 (duplicated by Thing-003)

Arithmetic tests for EXTRACREDIT

description-logic-905 [c]
description-logic-906 [c]
description-logic-910 [c]


Modification to oneOf-004
We are currently voting [1] on reclassifying tests which use datatypes
other
than {integer or string} as EXTRACREDIT. With one such test oneOf-004 it
makes more sense to change the test to use xsd:integer instead of
xsd:short,
and leave it as APPROVED. (It was not included in the proposal to move to
EXTRACREDIT)

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-test-20030818/proposedByFunction#oneOf-004

last triple in conclusions
first:i first:p "4"^^xsd:short  .

to be replaced by
first:i first:p "4"^^xsd:integer  .

[a]
See the following informal implementor reports as well as the results page
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0117.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0116.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0094.html


[b]
Note the input of Evren Sirin on these tests
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Nov/0026

[c]
(Arithmetic => EXTRACREDIT)
we are currently voting on approving 907 as EXTRACREDIT, which is a harder
variant of these tests - however it is a form that does not seem to have
been widely implemented,
I am pleased to see we have got two passes for 909.

[d]
(approving 3 larger once passed tests)
All of these have been proposed as part of our CR discussion. With only one
pass there is a greater risk that we will need to fix them (either as a
change before REC, or as a normative correction, the alternative is to
obsolete them.

[e]
These are full nonentailment or consistency tests, and hence fall under the
policy of being extracredit.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0095.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0114.html

[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0115.html
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 08:27:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT