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

Re: OWL Test Results page, built from RDF

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:29:36 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD9DF318A.83C0DE1D-ONC1256D98.0033568B-C1256D98.003431C1@agfa.be>


> > 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.

I was wrong - IncompleteRun is indeed a good idea for
saying "Pass" when you just time out (my confusion
was that I thought we then couldn't get a FailingRun for
a Consistency and Negative Entialment test, but we can).
I will try to update my testresults that way.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 05:29:44 GMT

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