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

best practices, Re: test results ontology

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 04:59:13 -0400
Message-Id: <200309150859.h8F8xDxh012168@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org


> >      http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/resultsOntology

> I suggest not using rdf:parsetype="Literal" - instead use xsd:string.

Hm.   Why xsd:string instead of plain literals?

I used rdf:parsetype="Literal" because:

    1.  It's good ("best") practice to allow html/markup, when
        possible, in human-readable strings.  (Sorry, I can't find a
        concise reference for this.)

    2.  Given that the XMLLiteral "hello" is not the same thing as the
        plain literal "hello", changing from 

           <rdfs:comment>I like cheese</rdfs:comment>

        to

           <rdfs:comment rdf:parsetype="Litera">I <em>like</em>
                                                  cheese</rdfs:comment> 

        involves a change in two dimensions, which somehow seems
        inelegant.  

Point 2 is quite weak.  I guess all I'm really attached to is making
sure *some* comments have markup and that applications can handle that
gracefully. 

> I suggest not limiting the output of a test run to be a document.  It is
> entirely possible that the output of a test run is a fragment of a
> document, or some other kind of entitity.  

What's important to me is that the URI given to name the output is one
which works nicely in browsers, so that links in the table are
helpful.  foaf:Document was the best I could find, but I agree
something which allowed HTML anchors/fragments would be better.

I suppose I can drop the foaf:Document bit and just use a comment, but
that smells a little like a failure of OWL.   What would you suggest
as an rdfs:range here?


> I suggest ensuring that the ontology is in OWL Lite.  I think that the only
> reason that the ontology is not in OWL Lite is that
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document is not an OWL class.
> 
> 	./owlParse http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/resultsOntology
> 	Reading http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/resultsOntology
> 	Fatal error: exception Owl.Syntax("Non-class uri for description: <http
> ://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document>
> 	")

In your opinion, to fix that (assuming I wanted to keep using
foaf:Document), I would need to get the FOAF folks to change their
ontology to be OWL Lite and then I would have to use owl:imports,
right?   Or could I leave out the imports part?

> It is not possible to correctly use xsd:duration in OWL (and RDF) as the
> value space for xsd:duration is not well-defined.  This is only mentioned
> in a comment, but I suggest that even this use is not appropriate.

Are you opposed to supporting the reporting of durations?  I've been
toying with displaying the duration on the results page at an
order-of-magnitude level, because I (as a user) would really like to
have some clues there.   

If not, do you have a suggestion for something instead of xsd:duration?

> There is a mixture of rdf:about and rdf:ID in the document.  I suggest
> moving entirely to rdf:about - strictly to prevent accidental occurrence of
> two rdf:ID for the same name causing an RDF syntax error.

Indeed.  Cut-and-paste authoring.  Fixed

> How does one report success in passing the syntax part of a test?

What DanC and I came up with was this:

<tres:test rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <tres:syntacticLevelTestFrom rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/Manifest601#test"/>
    </tres:test>
    <tres:system rdf:resource="#owlp"/>
    <tres:output rdf:resource="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Aug/0019.html"/>
</tres:PassingRun>

where tres:syntacticLevelTestFrom is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
from a "DerivedSyntacticLevelTest" to another test it's derived from.
The derived test involves correctly identifying the level of ALL the
documents use in the other test.  

I didn't document this in the test-results-ontology because it seemed
too owl-specific; in fact, it seems like it belongs in the
testOntology.  Jeremy?

     -- sandro
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 04:59:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT