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

Re: OWL Test Results page, built from RDF

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:59:09 +0100
Message-ID: <16219.365.461796.580846@excalibur.oaklands.net>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

On September 5, Jos De_Roo writes:
> > > 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.

A sound but incomplete reasoner can return 3 different results -
"yes", "no" and "don't know". We clearly need to distinguish failure
in the sense that a yes/no answer was returned but was incorrect from
the case where a don't-know answer is returned. Reporting something
like "incomplete" for the don't-know case seems reasonable and, as
was pointed out by Jeremy, is not pejorative.

I don't believe that it is either desirable or sensible for the
results to distinguish good/bad incompleteness. Bad incompleteness is
unsoundness and can simply be reported as "fail".


> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2003 03:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:55 UTC