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

Re: description-logic208

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:00:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3F83D237.9040201@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org


Would you like me to change the test by deleting this part of the conclusion?
We could add a separate test with this part as a nonconclusion.
Any idea what the minimal premises are?

Is it worth comparing the test with the original DL 98 test (or is that oo 
much of a pain)?

Presumably finding this part as a nonconclusion is done by finding a 
tableau, so in principal we have a witness as to why the test is wrong.
I doubt you could make it small enough to be examined by hand ...


Jeremy


Sean Bechhofer wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Has anyone had any success with this test?
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/Manifest208
>>
>>Judging by the test results, nobody has passed this one (and I'm getting
>>odd results from my implementation). I am beginning to wonder whether
>>there was an error in the translation from the original test, but if
>>someone has managed to show the entailments, I'll be happy.....
>>
> 
> I am now convinced there is a problem with this one. Both RACER and
> Vampire claim that that the following entailment in the conclusion does
> *not* hold:
> 
> [[
> <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#V16448">
>  <rdf:type>
>   <owl:Class rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#C122" />
>  </rdf:type>
> </owl:Thing>
> ]]
> 
> 	Sean
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 05:10:32 GMT

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