Re: Testing the (RL) testing...

I've quoted and responded to those bits for which I have useful feedback.

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:15, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> - Markus, I did download the RL tests[1]. However, I must admit that, at
> least for me, this has only a limited usability as is. To test my
> implementation, I need the individual 'premise' ontologies independently
> of one another, and all in RDF/XML. The file[1] includes all these as
> string literals, so I'd have to make an extra script that extracts those
> string literals, and stores the results in separate RDF/XML files

Alternatively, people can do this by writing a small amount with the
harness, even if the goal is to run tests with a non-Java tool.  I
added a bit the the Test_Running_Guide page to hint at this.


> - I picked one test (DisjointClasses-001[3]). It is a bit discomforting
> that the whole test is described in Functional Syntax that, as I said, I
> do not understand

> - However, I find the link at the bottom which says 'Auxiliary syntax
> documents' which does present the whole test in RDF/XML[4]. This is what
> I really need! Great.

Each test page shows the format the test was initially created in -
for most this is RDF, for some it is functional syntax.  Some tests
(mostly those with fs) have multiple normative formats.  If an
auxiliary syntax link is available (as it was in this case), it is
because the test was manually translated to have multiple normative
formats.  Both formats are included in the "download owl" link and the
exports, and test test may be used as a syntax translation test.


> I wonder whether that link should not appear in a more prominent place
> on[3] and not labelled as 'Auxiliary' but simply as 'RDF/XML version'.
> Alternatively, we could have a complete alternative of [3], with all the
> additional infos there, but in RDF/XML instead of FS. That could then be
> linked from[2], ie, we can save the user some extra hops.

That link is not just for RDF/XML.  A test could be initially in
RDF/XML and that link would provide a functional syntax version, or an
OWL/XML version.


> - This particular test is labelled (on [3]) as 'applicable under both
> direct and RDF-based semantics'. However, as far as I can see, this test
> cannot be completed using the OWL RL Rule set. This may be an example
> where the Direct semantics of RL and the RDF based semantics with the
> rules diverge or, more exactly, where the Rule set is incomplete. This
> is fine per se, as long as this is clearly stated on the test page
> somewhere; otherwise implementers may not understand why they cannot
> complete this test.

The entailed ontology in this test does not satisfy the requirements
of Theorem PR1.  I believe, then, that the RL + RDF Semantics
entailment checker could return unknown.    The test cases indicate
applicability of  Direct Semantics and RDF-Based semantics.  They do
not have an indicator for the partial axiomization of the RDF-Based
semantics provided by the RL rules.

***
I believe this was discussed in the past but no action was taken.
Would you like to propose enhancing the metadata for RL tests to
indicate if PR1 is satisfied?
***

> - Provided I run the test, eyeball the result, and I am happy with what
> I see, I presume I have to record it using[6]. First of all, it would be
> good to add some comments/annotations to that ontology because it is not
> 100% clear what the various terms mean. Also, the premise was that the
> implementer does not understand FS, which makes it a bit of a challenge
> for him/her...

I've modified the page to include a description of the example and
provided a link to the ontology in RDF/XML.  Hopefully that makes it
more approachable.


-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:11:33 UTC