- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:27:16 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Jeremy - as DanC says, the bane of my existence is doing
what the computer can do for me, and in this case it is loading
the overall manifest (AskJena) and proving the overall manifest.
While loading the overall manifest, we start an engine per
testcase, load in those the appropriate inputdocuments and later,
while proving the overall manifest, prove the outputdocuments.
On my slow laptop it now takes some 20 min to do that (and on
my faster linux box a couple of minutes).
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hpl.hp.com> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sent by: cc: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
www-webont-wg-req Subject: Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments
uest@w3.org
2003-09-11 09:48
AM
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 19:29:01 UTC