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

Re: OWL Test Results page, built from RDF

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:19:49 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0309091118440.12804-100000@potato>

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> Ian Horrocks writes:
> > 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".
> When I'm working on Surnia (based on otter+axioms), I'm trying to turn
> the Incompletes for Positive Entailment Tests and Inconsistency tests
> into Passes (while being very careful to avoid getting any Fails).  I
> have no expectation of making any progress on the Negative Entailment
> Tests or Consistent tests, however.  Is there no point to
> distinguishing between my expectations here?
> I've split the test results page into different sections for the
> different kinds of tests; maybe I'll just produce no column for any
> system which reports no-data on the tests in some section.  Then by
> producing no-data for the the tests which a systems has no hope of
> passing, it wont even be considered in the running.  Does that make
> sense?

I'd also like to see some indication on this page as to whether the test
is lite/owl/dl, as then I think that gives us a better idea of how well
we're covering the sub-species.


Sean Bechhofer
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 06:22:19 UTC

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