Re: Implementation report RDF Semantics

Here is my analysis of the two "failures" from Corese.

datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible
     The test says that it is inconsistent to state that xsd:integer is a
     subclass of xsd:string.

As most implementations directly implement datatype reasoning, they don't
depend on this fact about integers and strings.  They can correctly reason
about data values without noticing this invariant fact about the datatype
classes themselves.

OWL implementations have to reason from facts like these, for example to
correctly infer that the intersection of string and integer is empty, and so
any property with both string and integer as a range can never have any
fillers.


xmlsch-02-whitespace-facet-3
     Test that an explicit literal implies a blank filler that is a Literal

Most forward-chaining implementations of RDF reasoning do not directly
perform complete entailment.  This kind of inference and perhaps one other
is then handled by a separate portion of the system, which appears to not be
part of the Corese that was used in the testing.


So, Corese appears to have a good implementation of the core of 
forward-chaining RDF entailment, but does not directly implement two special 
cases (one related to datatype intensions and one related to datatype 
extensions and blank nodes).


peter




On 12/17/2013 10:00 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Looks much better! Thanks
>
> Guys, we have two implementations of semantics. One is 100% (hurray Jan!), one is almost 100%. Peter, it would probably be good to have a good idea tomorrow why Corese fails on two tests and whether those are essential in terms of testing. Put it another way, can we try to go to PR based on these test results?
>
> (We are still missing Michael Schreiber's report...)
>
> Ivan
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 20:55:35 UTC