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

Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:48:10 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <200309111048.10462.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Do systems need a fully automated test harness to pass a test?

I was chatting with Dave Reynolds about what is expected to pass an 
entailement test.

The tests are expressed as

Graph1 entails Graph2

In practice many APIs (including ours) do not directly support such an 

Hence Dave automatically transforms Graph2 into a query which he can then 
execute againsts Graph1, and pass the test.

That looks fine to me.

For some of the tests, he has a more complex query rewrite that he does 
manually, and then passes the test. I am discouraging him from reporting such 
tests as passed. (These reflect the lack of support for the comprehension 
axioms - the query rewrite essentially compensates for this).


What are other people doing? How much manual and/or automatic rewrite do 
people do?

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 04:48:44 UTC

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