- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:10:38 +0100
- 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 :-) Ian 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