Re: Testing the (RL) testing...

An RL implementation using the RDF-based semantics is a sound but  
incomplete OWL Full reasoner. So, it makes perfect sense to run such  
a system against *all* tests where the RDF-based semantics is  
applicable. What could/should be usefully distinguished, however, are  
positive-entailment/subsumption/unsatisfiability tests where  
implementations based on the RL rule set will return True. Conforming  
systems *must* pass these tests.

Unfortunately, identifying these tests will not, in general, be  
completely trivial -- we either need a "trusted" implementation with  
no additional features/rules, or we need a trusted pair of eyeballs.  
However, even identifying some tests that are in this category and  
some "Full" tests that are outside of this category would be a useful  
addition to the test set. Note that conforming RL systems are *not*  
obliged to "fail" the latter kind of test - they are simply not  
*obliged* to pass them.

Ian



On 3 Jun 2009, at 14:15, Mike Smith wrote:

> 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 15:21:35 UTC