RE: RL/Full testsuite uploaded

Hi Ian!

Ian Horrocks wrote:

>I tried to find these tests using [1], but it wasn't easy. Probably
>my fault. I tried browsing by species "OWL Full" and by profile "OWL
>RL", but that didn't work. 

Browsing for the "RL" flag won't give you the desired result, since my 
tests generally do not satisfy the syntactic restrictions of the 
OWL 2 RL profile, and therefore haven't been marked by that flag
(as settle in the past).
 
>I then tried looking at proposed tests,

My tests aren't marked as "proposed" yet. They are all "New Test"s.

>but there are a very large number and I gave up at some point still
>without finding the new tests. What am I doing wrong?

The most distinguishing feature, which will show you all of them, 
is that

[[
This test can be passed by implementations 
that use the OWL RL derivation rules.
]]

This is a new flag in the Test Wiki. When I click on the link

  "OWL RL derivation rules"

I am pointed to the Profiles document, though, not to a list
of "RL/RDF rules" testcases.

What I am currently doing to get the exact list of tests is 
simply clicking on my name in the "Top Contributor's" list. ;-)

@Markus: What is the preferred way to query for an arbitrary
subset of the whole OWL 2 testsuite, based on the different
flags that exist?

>Are there many/any tests in the test set that exercise TR1 from
>profiles? What I mean is non-entailment tests that satisfy the
>conditions of TR1 and for which an RL reasoner using the RDF-based
>semantics can therefore safely return "False".

Two points:

First, there are no non-entailment tests in my uploaded suite. There
are only positive entailment and inconsistency tests, most of them
being closely aligned to the form of the original rules. This was the
safest way to get them ready in time and being successfully checked 
against at least one existing implementation (actually Ivan's 
online RL-reasoner).

In general, I believe that a good suite made of consistency and 
non-entailment tests for the RDF-based semantics is significantly 
harder to design and to verify and, given the short time constraints, 
I decided to defer this task to a later time (not within CR at least).

Second, TR1 does not make any assumption about the relationship 
of the rules and the RDF-based semantics, but about the 
*Direct* semantics:

[[
Then, O1 entails O2 under the 
OWL 2 Direct Semantics [OWL 2 Direct Semantics] 
if and only if 
FO(RDF(O1)) ? R entails FO(RDF(O2)) 
under the standard first-order semantics.
]]

(See also my earlier mail [1].) 

Since all my tests are about the RDF-based semantics, the treatment
of TR1 would be out of scope for my testsuite, even in a future 
version.

>Ian
>
>
>[1] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/
>OWL_2_Test_Cases

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jul/0004.html>

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================