Web Ontology Language (OWL) Test Cases
Working Draft
04
February
2003
- This version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-test-20030604
- Latest version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
- Previous version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-test-20021024/
- Editors:
- Jeremy J. Carroll, HP
<jjc@hpl.hp.com>
-
Jos De Roo, AGFA,<jos.deroo@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 © 2003
W3C®
(MIT, ERCIM, 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.
Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication.
ther documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the
W3C.
This is the Last Call Working Draft of
"OWL Test Cases" for review by members of the W3C and
other interested parties in the general public.
The Last Call review is intended primarily to review the text of this document.
The tests are still in development and are
being changed during the last call review period,
up to the publication of the corresponding
Proposed Recommendation.
Each test
may be edited or have a change of status according to
the process specified below.
Further tests are being added.
An editors' version of this document, with the latest tests, can be found at
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot.
Other resulting changes expected before Proposed Recommendation
are indicated by editors' notes.
Despite this flux, the working group would value
implementor feedback on the tests both in this document and those found in
the editors' version.
The Last Call review period ends 07 March 2003.
This document is subsidiary to the normative
definition of the Web Ontology Language
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]).
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to cite this document 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.
Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on the Working Group's public
patent disclosure page.
Comments on this document should be sent to
public-webont-comments@w3.org,
a mailing list with a
public
archive.
General discussion of related technology is welcome in
www-rdf-logic@w3.org
(archive).
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 normative definition of OWL
found in
[OWL Abstract Syntax and 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.
Various conformance levels are defined in this document
in terms
of
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
However, the test cases do not constitute a conformance test suite for OWL.
The tests illustrate issue resolutions, and illustrate the use and meaning
of
the terms in the OWL namespace.
There are
other miscellaneous tests:
some
arising in the literature, and in preexisting systems;
others intending to show the difficulty of
complete implementations of OWL Full.
The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:
- This recommendation track document, which normatively includes the tests.
- Additional alternative forms of the normative tests. These are also
included in informative appendices to this document.
- A zip file including
- The RDF/XML files that participate in the
tests
- Manifest files indicating which tests should be apply to which
test files.
- The non-normative alternative forms of the test files.
This zip file is a non-normative alternative format.
- A
web-site
which includes the files in the zip file.
This also is a non-normative alternative format.
Note: Other files can be found
under the top URL of the web-site which are not part
of the deliverable.
[[EDITORS' NOTE: Do we need 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 conformance statements, 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 Proposed Recommendation 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 Proposed Recommendation 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;
i.e. after Proposed Recommendation, any system that passes all the test cases
will necessarily pass all the test case with errata.
Each test consists of either one or more 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 or more 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 semantics [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
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 semantics [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
The conclusions follow from the OWL semantics
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
These tests are a special case of the entailment tests
in which the premises are empty.
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
These are a special case of true tests.
The conclusions follow from the
OWL Full semantics
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
The tests are intended to illustrate how
OWL Full can be used to describe its own properties and
classes.
These tests use one document.
It is named consistentNNN.rdf.
The document is
consistent
as defined
by the OWL Semantics [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
(see also
OWL Full consistency).
These tests use one document.
It is named inconsistentNNN.rdf.
The document is not
consistent
as defined
by the OWL semantics [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
(see also
OWL Full consistency).
These tests use more than two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
another is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, the rest have names beginning supportNNN.rdf.
The support documents are in the
imports closure of the
premises document.
The conclusions are
entailed
by the
imports closure
of the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
These tests use two documents.
One is named importsNNN.rdf,
the other is named mainNNN.rdf.
These
tests indicate the
interaction between owl:imports
and the sublanguage levels of the main document.
An OWL Full
document
is an
RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax],
for which the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
does not use any URI references
starting with the prefix http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
except those found in the
[RDF Schema for OWL].
An OWL DL
document is an OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL DL ontology in RDF
graph form.
An OWL Lite
document is an OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL Lite ontology in RDF
graph form.
A consistent OWL
document is an OWL Full document
for which the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is
consistent
according to the
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
This section uses the words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY as in [RFC 2119].
An OWL
syntax checker
takes a document as input, and outputs one word being one of Lite,
DL, Full, Other.
The output MUST conform with the following:
- Lite
- The input document is an OWL Lite document.
- DL
- The input document is an OWL DL document
but not an OWL Lite document.
- Full
- The input document is an OWL Full document
but not an OWL DL document.
- Other
- The input document is not an OWL Full document.
An OWL
syntax checker SHOULD report network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
An OWL consistency checker
takes a document as input, and outputs one word being Consistent,
Inconsistent, or Unknown.
Five different conformance classes of
OWL consistency checker are defined.
An OWL consistency checker MUST NOT output Consistent
unless the input document is a
consistent OWL document.
An OWL consistency checker MUST NOT output Inconsistent
unless the input document is not a
consistent OWL document.
An OWL consistency checker SHOULD report
network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
An OWL Lite consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Lite document as input.
An OWL DL consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL DL document as input.
An OWL Full consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Full document as input.
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Lite document as input,
and is logically complete with respect to
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics] over the set of all
OWL Lite documents.
A complete OWL DL consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL DL document as input,
and is logically complete with respect to
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics] over the set of all
OWL DL documents.
[WG note:
The use of must, should etc. is consistent with [RFC 2119],
but since this section is informative I have not imported the definitions.]
An OWL syntax checker
when presented with any of the test files
must return the indicated result.
An OWL Lite consistency checker,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Lite consistency test,
must output Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL DL consistency checker,
when presented with a file from
an OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test,
must output Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL Full consistency checker,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Full, OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test,
must output Consistent
or Unknown.
The corresponding inconsistency tests must result in output of
Inconsistent or Unknown.
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a
complete OWL DL consistency
checker should not return Unknown on the relevant
consistency
or inconsistency tests.
Many of the
non-entailment tests can be converted into
consistency tests by negating the conclusions.
Many of the
entailment tests can be converted into inconsistency tests
by negating the conclusions.
When this process is applied to an OWL Lite entailment or non-entailment,
the resulting consistent or inconsistent document is usually an
OWL DL
document.
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:TrueTest- A true test.
otest:OWLforOWL- An OWL for OWL test.
otest:ConsistencyTest- A consistency test.
otest:InconsistencyTest- An inconsistency test.
otest:ImportEntailmentTest- An import entailment test.
otest:ImportLevelTest- An import level 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.
The support files for import entailment tests and import level tests are found
as the values of otest:importedPremiseDocument.
The conformance level associated with both files and tests
are given with the otest:level property.
The value for each document and test is one of
otest:Full, otest:DL,
otest:Lite or otest:Other (documents only).
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(specifically from [DL ref-1] and [DL ref-2]),
or from test suites contributed by DL implementors
(specifically some group
and some other group).
Some actual tests in this category ...
These tests, taken from the [OWL Guide]
are ones that do not fit any other category.
wine.owl, and food.owl by reference rather than verbatim ...
There is no expectation that any implementation will successful run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Some actual tests in this category ...
Tests concerning prime factorization.
tests concerning dominos and transitiveproperties with cardinality constraints.
Tests concerning peculiar extensions of the OWL vocabulary.
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.
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.
Tests are approved by working group decision.
The working group may take account of favourable review
of the tests and/or implementation reports, as well as other factors.
Many of the tests are proposed by Carroll and verified by De Roo's implementation.
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.
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.
- Substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions.
- 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 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, European Research Consortium for Informatics and
Mathematics, 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 prefixes are also declared using N3 syntax [N3].
Relative URLs in the triples are with respect to the following base:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/.
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#xsdhttp://www.w3.org/2005/XMLSchema#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 four 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#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2005/XMLSchema#> .
|
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(specifically from [DL ref-1] and [DL ref-2]),
or from test suites contributed by DL implementors
(specifically some group
and some other group).
Some actual tests in this category ...
These tests, taken from the [OWL Guide]
are ones that do not fit any other category.
wine.owl, and food.owl by reference rather than verbatim ...
There is no expectation that any implementation will successful run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Some actual tests in this category ...
Tests concerning prime factorization.
tests concerning dominos and transitiveproperties with cardinality constraints.
Tests concerning peculiar extensions of the OWL vocabulary.
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(specifically from [DL ref-1] and [DL ref-2]),
or from test suites contributed by DL implementors
(specifically some group
and some other group).
Some actual tests in this category ...
These tests, taken from the [OWL Guide]
are ones that do not fit any other category.
wine.owl, and food.owl by reference rather than verbatim ...
There is no expectation that any implementation will successful run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Some actual tests in this category ...
Tests concerning prime factorization.
tests concerning dominos and transitiveproperties with cardinality constraints.
Tests concerning peculiar extensions of the OWL vocabulary.
This section repeats the tests of the previous section.
Relative URLs in the triples are with respect to the following base:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/.
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#xsdhttp://www.w3.org/2005/XMLSchema#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 four 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#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2005/XMLSchema#> .
|
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(specifically from [DL ref-1] and [DL ref-2]),
or from test suites contributed by DL implementors
(specifically some group
and some other group).
Some actual tests in this category ...
These tests, taken from the [OWL Guide]
are ones that do not fit any other category.
wine.owl, and food.owl by reference rather than verbatim ...
There is no expectation that any implementation will successful run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics],
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Some actual tests in this category ...
Tests concerning prime factorization.
tests concerning dominos and transitiveproperties with cardinality constraints.
Tests concerning peculiar extensions of the OWL vocabulary.
Most of these issues will be ignored.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in CVS/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in oneOf/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in AllDistinct/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I3.4/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I4.1/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in FunctionalProperty/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in disjointWith/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in someValuesFrom/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in maxCardinality/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in intersectionOf/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in TransitiveProperty/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I3.2/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in umlp/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in editors-draft/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in oneOfDistinct/.
Can suffix be removed from URI: false.rdf
Jtidy reported 7 errors in webont-issues.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in imports/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in cardinality/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in allValuesFrom/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in Nothing/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in SymmetricProperty/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I5.1/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I5.3/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I5.5/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I4.6/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in samePropertyAs/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in complementOf/.
Unimplemented - non trivial ManifestLoader.getText()
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in InverseFunctionalProperty/.
Jtidy reported 214 warnings in webont-issues.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in bin/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in 03owlt/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in inverseOf/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in qualified-cardinality-constraints/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in unionOf/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in I5.24/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in sameClassAs/.
Jtidy reported 1 warnings in differentFrom/.
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.
Use relative URLs for some of the imports tests in triple form,
to stop them exceeding page widths limits.
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.
The following people have contributed tests to this document:
list to be created - in quantitive order.
This section is only for WG review,
and gives the changes since the version available
for the January face-to-face.
Extensive change to status of this document.
Change intro to be subsidiary only on ASS, and not on OWL Reference.
Weakened change process to only kick in after Proposed Rec.
Clarified monotonicity of change process.
Added test type TrueTests (editorial change) and OWLforOWL tests.
Deleted miscellaneous test type.
complete rewrite of conformance and running the tests sections.
Added contributors to the acknowledgements
Updated copyright statements
Changed approval process to not require review,
but to indicate that implementation experience counts.
Also specifically mentioned Carroll propose, De Roo verifies.
Permitted the use of relative URLs in the triples form of
the tests.
Added extra sections to the test case parts:
misc, dl, extra credit. Note in the final document there won't be a
proposed tests section, so the duplication of the text will be reduced.
Polishing of abstract and intro - vis-a-vis conformance statements
Other minor polishing
- [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]
-
Web Ontology Language (OWL) Abstract Syntax and Semantics .
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, Ian Horrocks, and Frank van Harmelen.
W3C Working Draft 08 November 2002.
Latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.
- [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/.
- [RFC 2119]
-
RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
. S. Bradner,
IETF. March 1997. This document is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.
- [RDF Concepts]
-
RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax.
Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, eds.
W3C Working Draft ?? January 2003.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/.
- [RDF Schema for OWL]
-
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.
Mike Dean, ed.
World Wide Web Consortium.
- [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 Guide]
-
Web Ontology Language (OWL)
Guide Version 1.0.
Michael K. Smith, Deborah McGuinness, Raphael Volz, Chris Welty, eds.
4 November 2002.
The latest version of the OWL Guide is
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/.
- [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.
The following refs were not defined: