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

RE: Test Results Organisation

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:14:12 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f46bba8dc91c12a@[129.2.177.32]>
To: "Charles White" <Charles.White@networkinference.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 6:41 PM +0100 10/7/03, Charles White wrote:
>Along with this reorganization, we would like to propose modifying 
>the 30 or so tests that are OWL Full instead of OWL DL simply 
>because of the lack of declaration of classes. As I think I 
>mentioned, if the change is made, we can classify and handle the 
>accompanying entailment test. We discussed this last week, but seem 
>to have come to no conclusion on that, and I also didn't see any 
>comments on the topic in the minutes. (Actually, I think it is 
>included in the note "Long Discussion".) I will submit the list of 
>tests that we think should be changed before thursday.
>
>charles

My belief is that the latest proposal was to pursue adding  tests 
that are the same as these but with the missing declarations added 
(as opposed to removing or morphing the current tests) -- thus people 
oculd easily see difference between these and better understand why 
the current tests are in Full and the new ones are in DL.
  -JH
p.s. I also think jeremy said that he would like someone else to 
volunteer to do this, but I'm not sure...


>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
>>  Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 7:20 AM
>>  To: Sean Bechhofer
>>  Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: Re: Test Results Organisation
>>
>>
>>
>>  From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
>>  Subject: Test Results Organisation
>>  Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:42:48 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
>>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > A while ago I raised the possibility of splitting the
>>  display of test
>>  > results to take into account the different species levels
>>  as well as the
>>  > approved/proposed status [1]. This would have the benefit
>>  of making it
>>  > easier to identify whether implementations targeting a particular
>>  > language species were on track (and determining whether,
>>  for example, an
>>  > implementation provides a substantial subset of DL [cf.
>>  exit criterion
>>  > 4]).
>>  >
>>  > I would have thought this would be relatively easy to do as the
>>  > information is all there in the manifests. Can I propose that we
>>  > make this change?
>>  >
>>  > 	Sean
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0130.html
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > Sean Bechhofer
>>  > seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
>>  > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
>>  >
>>  I think that this as an excellent idea.
>>
>>  peter
>>
>>

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 17:19:20 GMT

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