- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:42:15 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On 30 Oct 2007, at 13:20, Antoine Isaac wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > I find it very useful a beginning. I've not much to say expect > perhaps that for me it is likely that the validator is also likely > output some warnings, and not only valid/invalid statements. There > are some semantic constraints that are more like guidelines than > strict validity checks, aren't there? > > Antoine For the definition of a checker, I used the OWL Syntax Checker definition [1] as a starting point/inspiration. This gives a precise, concise definition of a service/tool that we can then actually design test cases for, and test mechanically. I'd quite agree that a useful tool will provide more than just a single word output :-). However, once we get into warnings, it becomes a much bigger job to specify (and test) the behaviour. What does it mean to issue a warning? How might those warnings be represented? I suggest that that is outside the scope of this WG. Again, referring back to the OWL experience, we built an OWL Ontology Validator [1]. There is some basic functionality that performs the syntax checking as described in the Recommendation, and that was used to get through the candidate rec, but then a bunch of other stuff that actually makes it useful. Sean [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#checkerConformance [2] http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 14:43:30 UTC