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

Re: OWL Test Results page, built from RDF

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:55:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3F584F99.7060907@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org



> My big dilemma right now is how we should report Consistency and
> Negative Entialment test results for incomplete reasoners.  I'm not
> comfortable with saying "Pass" when you just time out, but as Jos
> pointed out, the fact that you were not able to find an inconsistency
> is still useful.  Maybe something like "Partial", which would be
> considered better than "Incomplete" but still not as good as "Pass".
> This would allow an OWL Full implementation to, in theory, do okay
> (Pass/Partial) on every test.   Basically, "Incomplete" would be
> counted as "Partial" for certain types of reasoners on certain types
> of tests.   Maybe it should just be "Good Incomplete" and "Bad
> Incomplete"... -- but that distinction can be made in my code, as long
> as its told which kind of reasoner is involved.


If we use the term 'incomplete' it is not perjorative, merely a technical 
description.
However, given that even WG members cannot emotionally buy that, using 
'partial' instead is better.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 05:02:04 GMT

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