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

Re: Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:10:38 +0100
Message-ID: <16224.18974.471858.24214@galahad.cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, der@hplb.hpl.hp.com

All of the initial testing using FaCT that I reported some time ago
used semi-automated translation techniques similar to the ones you
describe below. A fully automated test harness would obviously be
better (and should soon be in place), but I was happy to report
results obtained using more primitive plumbing :-)


On September 11, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> Summary:
> 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 
> operation.
> 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?
> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 06:10:35 UTC

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