Re: Updated Conformance and Test Cases

On 5 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> Some comments on conformance:
>
> I wonder whether there should be a more specific pointer to the
> restrictions mentioned in the syntactic conformance, i.e. rather than
> just pointing to the syntax document, pointing to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Global_Restrictions_on_Axioms

Pointers added.

>
> A nit on the must accept/generate RDF/XML. Because of the syntactic
> restrictions in RDF/XML that prevent serialization of all RDF, for
> some OWL 2 Full document one MUST do something that isn't possible. I
> suggest a footnote saying something about this. An alternative would
> be to specify that NTRIPLES must be acceptable as well.

Added "if possible" to the statement about publishing in RDF/XML (as  
suggested by several people). An explanatory sentence on why some  
ontologies are not serialisable in RDF/XML could be added if  
necessary/useful.

>
> "with respect to a datatype map" -> "with respect to its datatype map"
> (i.e. the datatype map that the entailment checker supports, as
> described in subsequent lines).

Changed "a datatype map" to "its datatype map".

>
> "for example, very large integers". Do we not need a summary of what
> minimal conformance for literals are?

I added a pointer to the datatype map spec in syntax; I don't think  
that it is a good idea to either duplicate normative text or to  
fragment the normative description of the language any more than is  
absolutely necessary.

>
> "must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not
> supported by its datatype map or literals that it does not support
> (for example, very large integers); and"
> I wonder whether the appropriate response here is Unknown rather than
> Error. It seems rather like not having enough resources to evaluate
> the check.

Error seems right here; Error is also returned "if the computation  
fails, for example as a result of exceeding resource limits".

>
> "The properties of OWL 2 Full, DL, EL and QL entailment checkers mean
> that query answering should be both sound and complete. In the case of
> OWL RL, query answering should be sound, and will also be complete if
> both the ontology and the query satisfy the constraints described in
> Theorem 1."
> Should the "will also be complete" read "should also be complete"?

Fixed.

Ian

>
> -Alan
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Ian Horrocks
> <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I updated Conformance and Test Cases [1] both to reflect the  
>> resolution of
>> issue 150 [2] and to address outstanding review comments that were  
>> captured
>> in editors notes. The diff can be found at [3]. Please let me know  
>> if you
>> are satisfied with the current state of the document (modulo test  
>> cases).
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/150
>> [3]
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
>> title=Conformance_and_Test_Cases&diff=14372&oldid=14291
>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 19:01:02 UTC