Re: Implementation report RDF Semantics

On 12/18/2013 08:40 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
>
> On 18-12-13 13:12, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks Peter
>>>
>>> What effect does this have on the PR transition? Strictly speaking, we
>>> do not have two independent implementations for the complete test
>>> suite, ie, we have not fulfilled our exit criteria. Can there be a
>>> clear explanation that can be used to convince the Director that we can
>>> move ahead nevertheless? (I am looking for an elevator pitch equivalent
>>> of what you write below; something like "these tests are side-effect on
>>> the approach used for otherwise correct inference engines"...) One
>>> could actually argue whether these tests are correct in the first place
>>> if they are really dependent on the engines.
>>>
>>
>> One procedural technique would be to rescind those tests as not 
>> helpful to interoperability.
>
> OK, so lets look at the two tests:
>
> 1. datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible [1]
>
> xsd:integer rdfs:subClassOf xsd:string .
>   false
>
> As I said earlier: this requires a form of disjointness reasoning 
> (primitive datatypes are disjoint). Our ClioPatria reasoner handles it 
> correctly, because we built  a kind of first-principles reasoner. 
> However, such an approach is  typically not taken by tool builders, 
> because it is not very efficient. The fact that the test is false will 
> typically be built implicitly into the machinery, so the system can't 
> actually say explictly it is wrong.
>
> I suggest that failing this test is therefore in practice not a threat 
> to implementation interoperability.
>
>
> 2. xmlsch-02-whitespace-facet-3 [2]
>
> ex:a ex:prop "3"^^xsd:int .
>   entails
> ex:a ex:prop [ a rdfs:Literal ] .
>
> A bit of the same story. Yes, it is true. When reasoning from first 
> principles you would derive this fact. But why would an implementation 
> care?
>
> What you do care about as implementer are the other datatype tests, e.g.:
> * when there is a mismatch/equality/.. between two literals
> * when there is a mismatch between a literal and its datatype.
> Those are interoperability issues. And we have plenty of tests for 
> these. But these issues are not at stake in the two tests above.
>
> I therefore PROPOSE that these two tests be rescinded as they are not 
> helpful to interoperability.
>

That all makes sense.   Are there other tests that should be rescinded 
using this reasoning...?

      -- Sandro

> Guus
>
> [1] 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible
> [2] 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_xmlsch-02-whitespace-facet-3
>>
>>      - Sandro
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2013, at 21:55 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 15:18:13 UTC