OWL Test Cases
W3C Working Draft, 24 Oct 2002
- This version:
- No uri
- Latest version:
- http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it:8080/wowg/jsp/main.jsp
- Previous version:
- none
- Editors:
- Jeremy Carroll, HP
<jjc@hpl.hp.com>
-
Jos De Roo, AGFA,<jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
The tests of this document are also available in these non-normative formats:
Zip archive of approved tests, Zip archive of proposed tests, the test web site.
Copyright ©2002
W3C®
(MIT,
INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
approved by the
Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage
of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal
meaning of its constructs. Other test cases
illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the working group.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status
of this document series is maintained at the W3C.
The approved test cases in this document represent the consensus of the
Web Ontology Working Group as at 7th October 2002.
In later versions of this document many of the proposed tests will have
moved into the approved tests section, either positively or negatively, depending
on the working group consensus on the underlying issues.
This document is subsidiary to the other Web Ontology Language
recommendation track documents ([OWL Language],
[OWL Abstract Syntax],
[OWL Formal Semantics])
that give the formal definition of the language.
The test cases
described in this document (both approved and proposed)
may be updated, replaced, negated or
obsoleted at any time; despite this the working group would value
implementor feedback on them.
For this first Working Draft, feedback is particularly sought
on issues of test format, description, process and
presentation.
Comments on this document should be sent to
public-webont-comments@w3.org,
a mailing list with a
public
archive.
Alternatively, if you do not wish your comments to be made public, you can
send your comments to
w3t-semweb-review@w3.org
.
General discussion of related technology is welcome in
www-rdf-logic.
See also patent
disclosures related to this work.
This is a W3C Working Draft for review by W3C members and other
interested parties. It is a draft document and may be updated,
replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference materials or
to cite them as other than "work in progress." A list of current
W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at
http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This document has been produced as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity (Activity Statement)
following the procedures set out for the
W3C
Process. The document has been written by the
Web Ontology Working
Group. The goals of the Web Ontology working group are
discussed in the
Web Ontology
Working Group charter.
As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
[OWL Language]
the Web Ontology Working Group provides a
set of test cases. This document
contains those test cases.
They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification
of, the other recommendation track documents ([OWL Language],
[OWL Abstract Syntax],
[OWL Formal Semantics])
to which this document is subsiduary.
This document describes the various types of test used
and the format in which the tests
are presented.
Alternative formats of the test collection are provided.
These are intended to be suitable
for use by OWL developers in test harnesses,
possibly as part of a test driven development process,
such as Extreme Programming [XP].
The format of the Manifest files
used as part of these alternative formats is described.
This document describes the process for conflict
resolution and errata related to these tests.
In the non-normative appendices, this document also
describes the
process for creation and approval of these tests.
Further appendices show further proposed tests that are awaiting
resolution by the working group.
The test cases do not constitute a conformance test suite for OWL.
The test illustrate issue resolutions, and illustrate the use and meaning
of
the terms in the OWL namespace.
There are
other miscellaneous tests
motivated individually [[none in this version]] .
The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:
[[EDITORS' NOTE: Do we want index files for the web site that clarify which parts are part of
the deliverable and which are not?]]
Of the deliverables the only normative tests are
those included
in this document. All other deliverables,
are informative. Moreover, the recommendation document is
informative except for the test data (specified in RDF/XML
[RDF/XML Syntax]), and the supporting documentation.
When the normative tests and the other normative
OWL recommendations diverge the following process should be followed.
If the OWL working drafts are at or before last call then:
- The conflict is reported to
public-webont-comments@w3.org.
- The working group
makes appropriate modifications to remove the conflict.
If the OWL recommendation has passed last call then:
- The conflict is reported to
public-webont-comments@w3.org.
- The working group, or its successors, considers the conflict
- While this happens
the other recommendation documents take precedence over the test case.
- If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative
and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s)
then this is done.
- Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.
Note: this last step does not require consensus, or even a majority.
Note: the errata process over the tests is monotonic decreasing.
Each test consists of either one or two RDF/XML documents and a Manifest
file.
Tests of one document indicate some property of that document
when viewed as an OWL knowledge base.
Tests of two documents indicate a relationship between the two documents
when viewed as OWL knowledge bases.
The Manifest
file is named ManifestNNN.rdf (The NNN
is replaced by the test number).
It contains metadata (in RDF) indicating the test type,
and describing the test.
These tests use one document.
It is named badNNN.rdf.
This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name
that is not defined by the OWL recommendation.
Note: These tests are intended to help migration
from DAML+OIL [DAML+OIL],
since the local names chosen are defined in the DAML+OIL namespace.
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
The conclusions are entailed by the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL Formal Semantics].
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named nonconclusionsNNN.rdf.
The nonconclusions are not entailed by the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL Formal Semantics].
These tests use one document.
It is named consistentNNN.rdf.
The document is consistent as defined
by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL Formal Semantics].
These tests use one document.
It is named inconsistentNNN.rdf.
The document is inconsistent as defined
by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL Formal Semantics].
During development, tests that are not of one of the above types,
are classified as miscellaneous while awaiting a new test type
to be defined.
This document does not define criteria for how any
specific OWL system should respond to the test data.
Appropriate use of these tests should be determined by the
system developers.
The following guidelines are offered.
Any OWL compliant system should be able to read and process
all the test input files. Moreover, those files that show an
incorrect use of the OWL namespace
should result in the system issuing a diagnostic.
Complete OWL reasoners should prove all of the
relationships shown in these tests. However, incomplete reasoners
may fail to find proofs of some truths illustrated by these test cases.
In detail, we may see that, a reasoner is
unsound when:
A reasoner is incomplete if:
The Manifest file follows the RDF schema developed
for the RDF Test Cases [RDF Test Cases].
This is augmented by a few new properties and types
which are declared in the OWL Test Ontology, found
at http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology.
Specifically each test has its own Manifest file, and is identified from
the URI reference formed from the Manifest file's URL with a fragment test.
The test has one rdf:type explicit, and this is one of:
otest:NotOwlFeatureTest- A test for the incorrect us of OWL namespace.
otest:PositiveEntailmentTest- An entailment test.
otest:NegativeEntailmentTest- A non-entailment test.
otest:ConsistencyTest- A consistency test.
otest:InconsistencyTest- An inconsistency test.
rtest:MiscellaneousTest- Some other test.
Where otest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#
and rtest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema#.
The name of the original author of the test is shown using a
dc:creator property, see [Dublin Core].
A description of the test is given (using Xhtml markup [XHTML])
as the value of the rtest:description property.
An issue, if any, from the OWL Issues list [OWL Issues], is
the value of a rtest:issue property.
An appropriate language feature, from the OWL namespace, if any, is
the value of the otest:feature property.
The input documents with the test data are found as the value of
the rtest:inputDocument property or
as the value of both the
rtest:premiseDocument and
the
rtest:conclusionDocument.
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty,
and subject denotes a resource and
has two outgoing prop arcs, then the objects of these arcs
have the same denotation. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001" >
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject">
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object1" />
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object2" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#object1">
<owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="premises001#object2" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty,
and subject denotes a resource and
has two outgoing prop arcs, then the objects of these arcs
have the same denotation. Hence an arc originating in
object1 can be copied to object2. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises002#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises002" >
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject">
<first:prop>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="object1">
<eg:prop2>value</eg:prop2>
</rdf:Description>
</first:prop>
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object2" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/test002" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#object2" >
<eg:prop2>value</eg:prop2>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
If prop belongs to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
and object denotes a resource and
has two incoming prop arcs, then the subjects of these arcs
have the same denotation. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises001" >
<owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject1">
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object" />
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject2">
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#subject1">
<owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="premises001#subject2" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
If prop belongs to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
and object denotes a resource and
has two incoming prop arcs, then the subjects of these arcs
have the same denotation. Hence an arc originating in
subject1 can be copied to subject2. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises002#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises002" >
<owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject1" >
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object" />
<eg:prop2>value</eg:prop2>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject2" >
<first:prop rdf:resource="#object" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions002" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#subject2" >
<eg:prop2>value</eg:prop2>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
If the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is
an instance of the named property. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:my="http://example.net/myVocab#"
xmlns:eg="http://example.net/vocab#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:your="http://example.net/yourVocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.net/myVocab#hasBrother">
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="http://example.net/yourVocab#isBrotherOf"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.net/vocab#joe">
<my:hasBrother rdf:resource="http://example.net/vocab#bob"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:your="http://example.net/yourVocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.net/vocab#bob">
<your:isBrotherOf rdf:resource="http://example.net/vocab#joe"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Incorrect: |
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
<!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
xmlns:owl="&owl;"
>
<owl:Restriction owl:cardinalityQ="1">
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
<owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Incorrect: |
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
<!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl="&owl;"
>
<owl:Restriction owl:maxCardinalityQ="1">
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
<owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
(informative)
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Incorrect: |
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
<!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
xmlns:owl="&owl;"
>
<owl:Restriction owl:minCardinalityQ="1">
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
<owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:RDF> |
Tests are created by members of the working group.
An (optional)
test editor is provided to facilitate this.
Tests are then placed
in the appropriate directory in the
test web site.
This is done using CVS access to the W3C CVS server
[W3C CVS].
When created, tests are given a status of "PROPOSED".
The author of the test creates a Manifest file in the directory
of the new test, identifying:
- The creator of the test.
- The test type.
- A description of the test.
- The RDF/XML files used in the test.
- The status as
"PROPOSED".
- At least one of:
- An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of
some property or class in the OWL namespace.
- An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI
as specified in the OWL issues list [OWL Issues].
- Some other rationale for the test.
Optionally:
- Some part of the recommendation documents which are particularly relevant.
At the chair's discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put to the working group
in the weekly telecon or at a face-to-face meeting.
The chair actions two members of the working group to review the tests a week before
putting the test to the group.
If the Working Group approves a test, then it is included in the test case document.
The Working Group may reject a test, in which case its status is
changed to "REJECTED". This does not indicate that the
converse of the test has been accepted. There may be stylistic
or other grounds for rejecting technically correct tests.
The Working Group has complete discretion to approve or reject tests
independent of their conformance with this process or their conformance
with the OWL working drafts.
In the light of new information, and at the chairs' discretion, the working group
may review any previous decision regarding any test cases. The status of
"OBSOLETED" may be used where a test has ceased to be appropriate.
Until this document reaches last call, the editors may
make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests.
This includes:
- Editorial changes to text in the test descriptions.
- Fixing of typos and trivial errors.
- Moving tests to conform with document naming conventions.
- Renaming and renumbering tests and test files.
- Small substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions.
- Larger substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions
when actioned by the working group.
- Stylistic changes reflecting changes to the
preferences expressed in this document.
There is a preference for the following stylistic
rules.
None of these rules is obligatory, but test authors should be
minded that it will be easier to gain working gain group consensus
if they follow these rules.
Tests should normally be expressed in RDF/XML.
The following RDF/XML grammar rules [RDF/XML Syntax] are not used:
-
Property attributes.
-
Bag ID.
-
rdf:parseType="Resource".
Test and manifest files should have an xml:base attribute
[XMLBASE]
on
the document element. This should show the preferred URL
of the document, from which it is actually retrievable.
Files that contain no relative URIs may omit the xml:base attribute.
Test and manifest files should use the ".rdf"
suffix. URIs should not. The URL used for xml:base declarations
does not have a suffix.
All URLs in the test and manifest files should be retrievable web resources
except for those that use domain names with "example" as the penultimate
component (e.g. http://www.example.org/ontology#prop").
The following copyright statement should be included as an XML
comment in every test file:
<!--
Copyright World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en
Automatique, Keio University).
All Rights Reserved.
Please see the full Copyright clause at
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html>
$Id: This string is updated by cvs. $
-->
The description should:
- Link to relevant parts of of the OWL recommendations.
- Clearly distinguish syntactic and semantic concerns.
The description should be included as an XML comment
in each test file, and be included as RDF content in the Manifest file.
Tests that relate principally
to some owl property or class, should be put in a directory
named using the local name of that property of class.
Otherwise, tests that relate to an issue should be put in a directory
named like I3.4 where the issue number is taken from the OWL issue list
[OWL Issues].
Each directory should contain tests numbered consecutively from 001.
No two tests in a single directory should have the same number.
Each file in a test should have the number of the test at the end of its name, before the suffix.
The rest of the file name should follow the conventions for the test type.
Note:
the approved tests in a directory will not necessarily be contiguously numbered.
Note:
this differs from the RDF Core test case numbering conventions.
This section repeats the normative tests.
This time the test data is shown in simple triples,
using N-triple syntax [RDF Test Cases] with qnames.
Qnames are used in place of URIs in the syntax with no delimiters.
This syntax conforms with the usage in N3 [N3], the
namespace prefices are also declared using N3 syntax [N3].
The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#first- The URL of the first file concatenated with
#
second- The URL of the second file concatenated with
#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
the first three appear as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
|
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty,
and subject denotes a resource and
has two outgoing prop arcs, then the objects of these arcs
have the same denotation. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
first:subject first:prop first:object1 .
first:subject first:prop first:object2 .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:object1 owl:sameIndividualAs first:object2 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty,
and subject denotes a resource and
has two outgoing prop arcs, then the objects of these arcs
have the same denotation. Hence an arc originating in
object1 can be copied to object2. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix eg: <http://www.example.org/> .
|
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
first:object1 eg:prop2 "value" .
first:subject first:prop first:object1 .
first:subject first:prop first:object2 .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:object2 eg:prop2 "value" .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
and object denotes a resource and
has two incoming prop arcs, then the subjects of these arcs
have the same denotation. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
first:subject1 first:prop first:object .
first:subject2 first:prop first:object .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:subject1 owl:sameIndividualAs first:subject2 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
and object denotes a resource and
has two incoming prop arcs, then the subjects of these arcs
have the same denotation. Hence an arc originating in
subject1 can be copied to subject2. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix eg: <http://www.example.org/> .
|
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
first:subject1 first:prop first:object .
first:subject1 eg:prop2 "value" .
first:subject2 first:prop first:object .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:subject2 eg:prop2 "value" .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is
an instance of the named property. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix my: <http://example.net/myVocab#> .
@prefix your: <http://example.net/yourVocab#> .
@prefix eg: <http://example.net/vocab#> .
|
| Premises: |
my:hasBrother owl:inverseOf your:isBrotherOf .
eg:joe my:hasBrother eg:bob .
|
| Conclusions: |
eg:bob your:isBrotherOf eg:joe .
|
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix eg: <http://example.org/> .
|
| Incorrect: |
_:jARP4864 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP4864 owl:cardinalityQ "1" .
_:jARP4864 owl:onProperty first:exampleProp .
_:jARP4864 owl:hasClassQ first:exampleClass .
|
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Incorrect: |
_:jARP4867 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP4867 owl:maxCardinalityQ "1" .
_:jARP4867 owl:onProperty first:exampleProp .
_:jARP4867 owl:hasClassQ first:exampleClass .
|
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not
legal OWL. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix eg: <http://example.org/> .
|
| Incorrect: |
_:jARP4870 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP4870 owl:minCardinalityQ "1" .
_:jARP4870 owl:onProperty first:exampleProp .
_:jARP4870 owl:hasClassQ first:exampleClass .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty,
then its inverse is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises003" >
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop">
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#inv"/>
</owl:FunctionalProperty>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions003" >
<owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises003#inv"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If the range of prop is a singleton set then it is necessarily functional, (i.e. every member of its domain
has a single value) and so it is an owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises004" >
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Singleton"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Singleton">
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description/>
</owl:oneOf>
</rdfs:Class>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions004" >
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises004#prop"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 005 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty
then an OWL object has at most one value for prop. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/">
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object" />
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object">
<rdf:type>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty>
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
</owl:onProperty>
<owl:maxCardinality>1</owl:maxCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdf:type>
</owl:Thing>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
then its inverse is an owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises003" >
<owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop">
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#inv"/>
</owl:InverseFunctionalProperty>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions003" >
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises003#inv"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If the domain of prop is a singleton set then it is necessarily inverse functional, (i.e. every member of its
range is the value of a single item) so it is an
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises004" >
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Singleton"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Singleton">
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description/>
</owl:oneOf>
</rdfs:Class>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions004" >
<owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises004#prop"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Inconsistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
The triple asserts something of type Nothing, however
that is the empty class. |
| Inconsistent: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
<owl:Nothing/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
There is one empty owl:Class, and it is often called Nothing. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
<owl:Class>
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
</owl:oneOf>
<owl:sameClassAs
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Nothing" />
</owl:Class>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A simple illustration of transitivity. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/premises001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Antwerp">
<first:path rdf:resource="premises001#Amsterdam"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Ghent">
<first:path rdf:resource="premises001#Antwerp"/>
</rdf:Description>
<owl:TransitiveProperty rdf:about="premises001#path">
</owl:TransitiveProperty>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/conclusions001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Ghent">
<first:path rdf:resource="premises001#Amsterdam"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
The order of the classes in an intersectionOf
construct is unimportant. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/premises001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#B">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Student"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Employee"/>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#C">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Employee"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Student"/>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</rdf:Description>
<first:B rdf:about="premises001#John">
</first:B>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/conclusions001" >
<first:C rdf:about="premises001#John">
</first:C>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Inconsistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A property with maximum cardinality of two cannot take
three distinct values on some subject node. |
| Inconsistent: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent001#sb1">
<rdf:type rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
<owl:maxCardinality>2</owl:maxCardinality>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="inconsistent001#prop"/>
</rdf:type>
<first:prop rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob1"/>
<first:prop rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob2"/>
<first:prop rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent001#ob1">
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob2"/>
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent001#ob2">
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent001#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="inconsistent001#prop"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Inconsistent document. | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A property with maximum cardinality of two cannot take
three distinct values on some subject node.
In this example, one of the three values is implicit. |
| Inconsistent: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent002#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent002" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent002#sb1">
<rdf:type rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
<owl:maxCardinality>2</owl:maxCardinality>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="inconsistent002#prop"/>
</rdf:type>
<first:prop rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob1"/>
<first:prop rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob2"/>
<first:otherprop rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent002#ob1">
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob2"/>
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent002#ob2">
<owl:differentIndividualFrom rdf:resource="inconsistent002#ob3"/>
</rdf:Description>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="inconsistent002#prop"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="inconsistent002#otherprop">
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="inconsistent002#prop"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Consistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
oneOf does not indicate that the named
individuals are distinct. Thus a consistent interpretation
of this file is when all the individual names denote the
same individual. |
| Consistent: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/consistent001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/consistent001" >
<owl:Class>
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="amy"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="bob"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="caroline"/>
</owl:oneOf>
<owl:sameClassAs>
<owl:Class>
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="yolanda"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="zebedee"/>
</owl:oneOf>
</owl:Class>
</owl:sameClassAs>
</owl:Class>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A union is a superclass of its parts. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises001" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#A">
<owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Human"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#Animal"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</rdf:Description>
<first:Human rdf:about="premises001#John">
</first:Human>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises001#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions001#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions001" >
<first:A rdf:about="premises001#John">
</first:A>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A union behaves quite like set theoretic union. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises002#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions002#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises002" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#A">
<owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#Human"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#Animal"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#B">
<owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#Animal"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#Human"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#Stone"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</rdf:Description>
<first:A rdf:about="premises002#John">
</first:A>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:first="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/premises002#"
xmlns:second="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions002#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/conclusions002" >
<first:B rdf:about="premises002#John">
</first:B>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This is not legal OWL. The name UnambiguousProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Incorrect: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" >
<owl:UnambiguousProperty rdf:ID="Name"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This is not legal OWL. The name UniqueProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Incorrect: |
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" >
<owl:UniqueProperty rdf:ID="Name"/>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This entailment is similar to one that does not hold
in RDFS only (no owl:Property
or owl:Class triples). |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/premises001" >
<owl:Property rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:range>
<owl:Class rdf:ID="A">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Class rdf:ID="B"/>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>
</rdfs:range>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/conclusions001" >
<owl:Property rdf:about="premises001#prop">
<rdfs:range>
<owl:Class rdf:about="premises001#B"/>
</rdfs:range>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This seems intuitive but doesn't seem to fit with the RDF Model Theory. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/premises002" >
<owl:Property rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#A"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#B"/>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/conclusions002" >
<owl:Property rdf:about="premises002#prop">
<rdfs:range>
<owl:Class>
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#A"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#B"/>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</owl:Class>
</rdfs:range>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This is a typical definition of range from description logic. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/premises003" >
<owl:Property rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#A"/>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/conclusions003" >
<owl:Thing>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="premises003#prop"/>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="premises003#A"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Thing>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This is a typical definition of range from description logic.
It works both ways. |
| Premises: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/premises004" >
<owl:Thing>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="conclusions004#prop"/>
<owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="conclusions004#A"/>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Thing>
</rdf:RDF> |
| Conclusions: |
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/conclusions004" >
<owl:Property rdf:ID="prop">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#A"/>
</owl:Property>
</rdf:RDF> |
This section repeats the tests of the previous section.
The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#first- The URL of the first file concatenated with
#
second- The URL of the second file concatenated with
#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
the first three appear as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
|
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty,
then its inverse is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
first:prop owl:inverseOf first:inv .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:inv rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If the range of prop is a singleton set then it is necessarily functional, (i.e. every member of its domain
has a single value) and so it is an owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
first:prop rdfs:range first:Singleton .
first:Singleton rdf:type rdfs:Class .
_:jARP5104 rdf:first _:jARP5105 .
_:jARP5104 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5104 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:Singleton owl:oneOf _:jARP5104 .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 005 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty
then an OWL object has at most one value for prop. |
| Namespaces: |
@prefix eg: <http://www.example.org/> .
|
| Premises: |
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
eg:foo#object rdf:type owl:Thing .
|
| Conclusions: |
eg:foo#object rdf:type owl:Thing .
_:jARP5110 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
_:jARP5110 owl:onProperty eg:foo#prop .
_:jARP5110 owl:maxCardinality "1" .
eg:foo#object rdf:type _:jARP5110 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
then its inverse is an owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
first:prop owl:inverseOf first:inv .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:inv rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
If the domain of prop is a singleton set then it is necessarily inverse functional, (i.e. every member of its
range is the value of a single item) so it is an
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
first:prop rdfs:domain first:Singleton .
first:Singleton rdf:type rdfs:Class .
_:jARP5118 rdf:first _:jARP5119 .
_:jARP5118 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5118 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:Singleton owl:oneOf _:jARP5118 .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
|
| Inconsistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
The triple asserts something of type Nothing, however
that is the empty class. |
| Inconsistent: |
_:jARP5121 rdf:type owl:Nothing .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
There is one empty owl:Class, and it is often called Nothing. |
| Premises: |
|
| Conclusions: |
_:jARP5122 rdf:type owl:Class .
_:jARP5122 owl:oneOf rdf:nil .
_:jARP5122 owl:sameClassAs owl:Nothing .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A simple illustration of transitivity. |
| Premises: |
first:Antwerp first:path first:Amsterdam .
first:Ghent first:path first:Antwerp .
first:path rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:Ghent first:path first:Amsterdam .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
The order of the classes in an intersectionOf
construct is unimportant. |
| Premises: |
_:jARP5134 rdf:first first:Employee .
_:jARP5134 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5134 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5132 rdf:first first:Student .
_:jARP5132 rdf:rest _:jARP5134 .
_:jARP5132 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:B owl:intersectionOf _:jARP5132 .
_:jARP5139 rdf:first first:Student .
_:jARP5139 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5139 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5137 rdf:first first:Employee .
_:jARP5137 rdf:rest _:jARP5139 .
_:jARP5137 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:C owl:intersectionOf _:jARP5137 .
first:John rdf:type first:B .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:John rdf:type first:C .
|
| Inconsistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A property with maximum cardinality of two cannot take
three distinct values on some subject node. |
| Inconsistent: |
_:jARP5144 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP5144 owl:maxCardinality "2" .
_:jARP5144 owl:onProperty first:prop .
first:sb1 rdf:type _:jARP5144 .
first:sb1 first:prop first:ob1 .
first:sb1 first:prop first:ob2 .
first:sb1 first:prop first:ob3 .
first:ob1 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob2 .
first:ob1 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob3 .
first:ob2 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob3 .
first:prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
|
| Inconsistent document. | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A property with maximum cardinality of two cannot take
three distinct values on some subject node.
In this example, one of the three values is implicit. |
| Inconsistent: |
_:jARP5157 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP5157 owl:maxCardinality "2" .
_:jARP5157 owl:onProperty first:prop .
first:sb1 rdf:type _:jARP5157 .
first:sb1 first:prop first:ob1 .
first:sb1 first:prop first:ob2 .
first:sb1 first:otherprop first:ob3 .
first:ob1 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob2 .
first:ob1 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob3 .
first:ob2 owl:differentIndividualFrom first:ob3 .
first:prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
first:otherprop rdfs:subPropertyOf first:prop .
|
| Consistent document. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
oneOf does not indicate that the named
individuals are distinct. Thus a consistent interpretation
of this file is when all the individual names denote the
same individual. |
| Consistent: |
_:jARP5171 rdf:type owl:Class .
_:jARP5176 rdf:first first:caroline .
_:jARP5176 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5176 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5174 rdf:first first:bob .
_:jARP5174 rdf:rest _:jARP5176 .
_:jARP5174 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5172 rdf:first first:amy .
_:jARP5172 rdf:rest _:jARP5174 .
_:jARP5172 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5171 owl:oneOf _:jARP5172 .
_:jARP5178 rdf:type owl:Class .
_:jARP5181 rdf:first first:zebedee .
_:jARP5181 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5181 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5179 rdf:first first:yolanda .
_:jARP5179 rdf:rest _:jARP5181 .
_:jARP5179 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5178 owl:oneOf _:jARP5179 .
_:jARP5171 owl:sameClassAs _:jARP5178 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A union is a superclass of its parts. |
| Premises: |
_:jARP5186 rdf:first first:Animal .
_:jARP5186 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5186 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5184 rdf:first first:Human .
_:jARP5184 rdf:rest _:jARP5186 .
_:jARP5184 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:A owl:unionOf _:jARP5184 .
first:John rdf:type first:Human .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:John rdf:type first:A .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| A union behaves quite like set theoretic union. |
| Premises: |
_:jARP5193 rdf:first first:Animal .
_:jARP5193 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5193 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5191 rdf:first first:Human .
_:jARP5191 rdf:rest _:jARP5193 .
_:jARP5191 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:A owl:unionOf _:jARP5191 .
_:jARP5200 rdf:first first:Stone .
_:jARP5200 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5200 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5198 rdf:first first:Human .
_:jARP5198 rdf:rest _:jARP5200 .
_:jARP5198 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5196 rdf:first first:Animal .
_:jARP5196 rdf:rest _:jARP5198 .
_:jARP5196 rdf:type rdf:List .
first:B owl:unionOf _:jARP5196 .
first:John rdf:type first:A .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:John rdf:type first:B .
|
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This is not legal OWL. The name UnambiguousProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Incorrect: |
first:Name rdf:type owl:UnambiguousProperty .
|
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This is not legal OWL. The name UniqueProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Incorrect: |
first:Name rdf:type owl:UniqueProperty .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 001 |
|---|
| Description:
|
This entailment is similar to one that does not hold
in RDFS only (no owl:Property
or owl:Class triples). |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
first:A rdf:type owl:Class .
first:B rdf:type owl:Class .
first:A rdfs:subClassOf first:B .
first:prop rdfs:range first:A .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
first:B rdf:type owl:Class .
first:prop rdfs:range first:B .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 002 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This seems intuitive but doesn't seem to fit with the RDF Model Theory. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
first:prop rdfs:range first:A .
first:prop rdfs:range first:B .
|
| Conclusions: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
_:jARP5215 rdf:type owl:Class .
_:jARP5218 rdf:first first:B .
_:jARP5218 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:jARP5218 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5216 rdf:first first:A .
_:jARP5216 rdf:rest _:jARP5218 .
_:jARP5216 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:jARP5215 owl:intersectionOf _:jARP5216 .
first:prop rdfs:range _:jARP5215 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 003 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This is a typical definition of range from description logic. |
| Premises: |
first:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
first:prop rdfs:range first:A .
|
| Conclusions: |
_:jARP5222 rdf:type owl:Thing .
_:jARP5223 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP5223 owl:onProperty first:prop .
_:jARP5223 owl:allValuesFrom first:A .
_:jARP5222 rdfs:subClassOf _:jARP5223 .
|
| Positive Entailment Test: | 004 |
|---|
| Description:
|
| This is a typical definition of range from description logic.
It works both ways. |
| Premises: |
_:jARP5226 rdf:type owl:Thing .
_:jARP5227 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:jARP5227 owl:onProperty second:prop .
_:jARP5227 owl:allValuesFrom second:A .
_:jARP5226 rdfs:subClassOf _:jARP5227 .
|
| Conclusions: |
second:prop rdf:type owl:Property .
second:prop rdfs:range second:A .
|
Most of these issues will be ignored.
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I3.2/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I3.4/
Jtidy reported 7 errors in webont-issues.
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in umlp/.
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/inverseOf/
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I4.1/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in FunctionalProperty/.
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in 03owlt.
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Nothing/
Server returned HTTP response code: 403 for URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in qualified-cardinality-constraints/.
Jtidy reported 231 warnings in webont-issues.
Can the descriptions of approved tests be quotes from other (normative) documents?
Check descriptions for appropriate links to other OWL specs.
Add automatic checking of filenames.
Check erratum process against latest W3C process documents (including those
in active development).
OWL Lite tests may be flagged.
(And other levels).
Imports tests may be flagged.
Conformance is not yet addressed.
Jeremy Carroll thanks Oreste Signore,
his host at
the W3C Office in Italy and
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione
"Alessandro Faedo", part of the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, where Jeremy is a
visiting researcher.
- [OWL Abstract Syntax]
-
OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Abstract Syntax.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Ian Horrocks, and Frank van Harmelen..
W3C Working Draft 29 July 2002.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/.
- [OWL Formal Semantics]
-
In preparation.
- [OWL Language]
-
OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Reference.
Mike Dean, Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, James Hendler, Ian Horrocks,
Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein.
W3C Working Draft 29 July 2002.
Latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/.
- [RDF/XML Syntax]
-
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised).
Dave Beckett, ed.
W3C Working Draft 25 March 2002.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.
- [DAML+OIL]
-
DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description.
Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, Ian Horrocks,
Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein.
W3C Note 18 December 2001.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference.
- [Dublin Core]
-
http://dublincore.org/documents/
- [N3]
-
Primer: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly
- [OWL Issues]
-
Web Ontology Issue Status.
Michael K. Smith, ed.
10 Jul 2002.
- [RDF Test Cases]
-
RDF Test Cases, A. Barstow, D. Beckett, J. Grant, Editors. Work in progress. World Wide Web Consortium, 15 November 2001. This version of the RDF Test Cases is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-testcases-20011115/. The latest version of the RDF Test Cases is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases.
- [W3C CVS]
-
Use of CVS in W3C
(member-only link).
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
Gerald Oskoboiny.
2002.
- [XHTML]
-
XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language,
W3C Recommendation, S. Pemberton et
al., 26 January 2000.
Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126
- [XMLBASE]
-
XML Base, J. Marsh, Editor, W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium, 27 June 2001. This version of XML Base is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/. The latest version of XML Base is at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/.
- [XP]
-
Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change,
Kent Beck.
5 Oct 1999.
Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201616416.