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

Re: More tests

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:50:49 +0100
Message-ID: <16249.46185.807101.367578@excalibur.oaklands.net>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

On September 27, Jos De_Roo writes:
> 
> 
> > One type of test that we are missing is small tests that, while
> > potentially easy may prove difficult for some naive implementations.
> > Attached is an example of such a test. The "TEST" class, and hence the
> > ontology, is inconsistent. I would like to add several of these kinds
> > of test to the test suite.
> >
> > I would be interested to hear how the various implementations fare on
> > this test (FaCT can pass it in about 10ms, not including parsing).
> 
> We fare well and it takes only a few 10ms
> but I'm not happy with our current implementation
> and I'm getting less and less convinced about the
> utility of owl:complementOf as each day passes;
> it is also remarkable that it is not used in galen.owl
> and in wine.owl and only once in food.owl namely
> [[
>   <owl:Class rdf:ID="NonConsumableThing">
>     <owl:complementOf rdf:resource="#ConsumableThing" />
>   </owl:Class>
> ]]
> but then NonConsumableThing is not used any further...

Recall that negation can be captured even in OWL Lite, where the
operator is not explicitly supported. Negation is, e.g., implicit in
disjointness, inequality and dualities such as
someValuesFrom/allValuesFrom. So whether you believe it to be useful
or not, explicit negation should make little difference from a
reasoning perspective.

Ian

> 
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 14:39:50 GMT

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