Question on OWL tests

• From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>
• Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:58:32 +0100
• To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Sean Bechhofer'" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
• Cc: "'public-webont-comments@w3.org'" <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E8080327429F@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>

I have a question about the OWL test suite.  In Restriction test 5
(http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Restriction/Manifest005#test), there is a
negative entailment test for the introduction of a concept name in the
conclusions (it's labelled as a "mis-application of the OWL comprehension
axioms"). This test fails if the reasoner allows the introduction of concept
in the conclusions.  Conversely, in Description Logic test 901
(http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/Manifest901#test), the
positive conclusions are of the form:

  <owl:Class>
    <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
       <owl:Restriction>
          <owl:onProperty>
            <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="premises901#p"/>
          </owl:onProperty>
          <owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger"
          >2</owl:minCardinality>
       </owl:Restriction>
       <owl:Restriction>
	....
  </owl:Class>

This seems to require me to use the comprehension axioms to introduce a new
concept (albeit an anonymous one), in a way that restriction test 5 says
shouldn't be done.  I'm wondering why this wasn't done as a consistency
test, and whether there is indeed a conflict between the two tests.

Thanks,
Ian

Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 11:59:18 UTC