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

RE: Dave's modified tests

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:53:50 +0200
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKEBCCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> Agreed - no problem regarding automatic (or even systematic manual)
> rewriting - this could easily be part of an implementation. There was,
> however, some talk (from Sandro?) of proofs relying on human
> intervention/guidance - this obviously can't count as a pass.
>

I do not believe Dave's intervention is automatic, but I do believe it is
systematic.
i.e. if the conclusions of a positive or negative entailment includes blank
nodes of (possibly inferrable class) type owl:Class or owl:Restriction, and
such nodes root subgraphs that (other than missing type expressions) conform
with the OWL DL syntax for *description* then, the tree rooted in such nodes
can be inferred by the comprehension axioms. Since Dave has decided that he
does not want to provide such inferences with his reasoner's native
capability (which has a very general "what do you know?" interface) he adds
these class expressions to the premises - which is sound because the class
expressions are inferrable from the premises.
(Hmm the human verification of that soundness is not completely trivial -
the components used in the class expression must be inferrable).

I'm thinking of a reply along the lines of:


[[
Thanks for the offer of tests which do not exercise the comprehension
axioms.
There is not consensus in the group to include easier versions of tests that
we already have; and stronger feeling against making any of our current
tests easier
in this way.

As you will have noticed that are some features of OWL which are
inadequately tested,
if you develop any tests for such features please let us know.

As far as reporting your test results go, some others implementors have used
systematic
manual intervention at some points in the test cycle.
While our main report on the tests passed by various implementations will be
restricted
to entirely automated test runs, we will have a subsidiary report indicating
the passing of tests which have been manually reformatted in a systematic
way.
Hence we encourage you to submit two tests reports, ones for the tests that
you run out-of-the-box, and a second for tests which you have had to
manually reformat.

]]

I think that captures where we have got to ... although I am not sure
whether Sandro is intending to report manually reformatted test passes at
all.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 09:11:58 GMT

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