RE: results ontology

Would it be possible to just add a reason or explanation field somewhere, I guess as a DatatypeProperty on Test since it is the superclass of all the other tests. That field could be used to say things like - For an Incomplete Test - "This is a DL reasoner, it doesn't handle Full tests" or for a failing test - "Test timed out"

charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 11 September 2003 04:58
> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: results ontology 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone asked privately about Euler passing nonentailments and
> consistency tests, which it shouldnt be able to do.
> 
> I'm curious about that, too.   
> 
> I'm thinking of added a tres:note predicate, producing results like
>  
>       Pass
>       Pass [1]
>       Pass
>       Pass [2]
>       Pass [1]
>       Pass
> 
> where [1] and [2] would be links to explanatory or qualifying 
> notes, where
> people can explain why they think this is passing.   :-)
> 
> Also, I'm thinking of a bit of text at the top of each section
> defining the term, so at the top of Consistency Tests it would say:
>    "Pass" means returning "Consistent"
>    "Fail" means returing "Inconsistent"
>    "Incomplete" means returning "Unknown", not returning, raising
>          and error, etc
> 
> ... but as I write that I'm not even sure we'd agree (or, more to the
> point, how OWL Test Cases reads on this).  Some people might consider
> dumping core as a kind of Failure.
> 
> Of course we never say (I think) what kind of software might pass or
> not pass an Entailment or Non-Entailment test, or what it might
> return.   Ah well.
> 
>       -- sandro
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 11:42:16 UTC