Re: Testing the (RL) testing...

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 03:00, Markus Krötzsch <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2009, Michael Schneider wrote:

>> 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.

Correct, the field is intended to match this definition from Conformance.

"An OWL 2 RL ontology document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document where
the corresponding instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies the
definition of an OWL 2 RL ontology given in the OWL 2 Profiles
specification. "


>> 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?

Can we identify such cases?  As I understand it, we only make
assertions about completeness of the rules in Theorem PR1, which
requires the input ontologies to be syntactically RL.


>> This should then also show up in the Test-Wiki, as
>> something like:
>>
>>   Syntactic Species/Profile    OWL 2 Full (RL=ok)
>
> Right, the application logic of those templates has been designed when we were
> still using "DL" and "Full" even for semantics, and when all profiles were
> assumed to be sublanguages of DL. This should obviously be changed now -- I
> will take care of this. Maybe we should also check if there are any
> ramifications for the Conformance document (but I believe that this has been
> updated many times since these changes happened).


It would be helpful if someone can describe how we identify test cases
where the input ontologies are not syntactically RL but for which
RL=ok.

Thanks,
-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 13:20:47 UTC