W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: bug in (approved) test case (syntax)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:57:19 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0907261557o5fef14f0ibd6e3f7a1fe11619@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> You are looking at the (advertised) buggy output of the current OWL
>> API.
> Yeah, I didn't read the message as nearly that strong.  I thought it was
> talking about more subtle issues, with more obscure syntaxes that
> Honestly, this makes me deeply skeptical about ending CR.

Why -  want to unpack this. Is it because the OWLAPI that we are using
on the test site should be an exemplary implementation?

There is an OWLAPI v3 that is, as I understand it, almost ready.
Perhaps it could be swapped in to the manchester site we are using for
these translations.

>> The normative RDF/XML for these tests are on pages pointed to on
>> the wiki page:
>> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Feature-Obj=
>> ectQCR-001-RDFXML
> Is that the "Download OWL" link that I see now?   Or something...?


>> These validate properly.
> But are they right?   Why would I think they were?

Because, as the page says, they are manually translated to RDF and are
normative, and if they have been approved there have been two
implementations that have passed the test, which was our decided upon

I do think the web site should be cleaned up - we shouldn't offer to
dynamically translate to RDF if we have a hand written version, and we
should perhaps just remove the links to the service until it works


>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> > Looking at a random test case:
>> > =A0 =A0http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Fe=
>> ature-ObjectQCR-001
>> >
>> > I find the provided RDF/XML (attached) isn't well-formed XML. =A0I expect
>> > the problem is pervasive.
>> >
>> > FWIW, the version in the all.rdf, which is somewhat different, looks
>> > okay. =A0(It's also attached.) =A0I suppose we're running some bleeding e=
>> dge
>> > converter to produce the RDF/XML?
>> >
>> > =A0 =A0-- Sandro
>> >
>> >
>> >
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 22:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:42:00 UTC