RE: Testing the (RL) testing...

Mike Smith answered to Ivan Herman:

>> - 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?
>***

Another scenario is when I have a test case that falls syntactically 
outside OWL 2 DL, but an RL/ruleset-based reasoner is still expected 
to succeed on the test case when implementing the rule set (and
by this using a subset of the RDF-Based Semantics).

I have many test cases of this form in my currently constructed
"rdfbased" test suite, and I am in the progress of marking them
all as "RL test cases". (Actually, I'm refining my suite to 
have a sub suite that systematically covers all of RL/rules,
just for Ivan's interest :) -- well, actually even for all
of W3C's RDF-based entailment regimes, but that's offtopic here).

In the Test-Wiki, I tried to represent this scenario in the 
following way:

  |semantics=full
  |rl=In RL
  |dl=Not in DL

But I am uncertain, if this is ok. The output in the Wiki is only

[[
Syntactic Species/Profile 	 OWL 2 Full

Semantics 	This test is applicable under the RDF-based semantics. 
            It should not be considered under the direct semantics 
            because it does not satisfy the syntactic constraints 
            of OWL 2 DL.
]]

So, "RL" isn't mentioned at all in the rendered version.

I guess, by "rl=In RL" it is basically meant that the ontologies 
conform /syntactically/ to OWL 2 RL, which means they have to satisfy 
the syntactic restrictions of the DL-ish variant of OWL 2 RL. 

But why don't we simply re-interpret this for the case of OWL 2 RL, 
so that the above combination (semantics=full, dl=no, rl=yes) means 
that the testcase can safely be consumed by systems implementing the 
RL-ruleset? This should then also show up in the Test-Wiki, as 
something like:

  Syntactic Species/Profile 	 OWL 2 Full (RL=ok)

Cheers,
Michael

--
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
=======================================================================