W3C

OWL Web Ontology Language
Test Cases

W3C Working Draft 01 April 2003

This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-test-20030401/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-test-20030217/
Editors:
Jeremy J. Carroll, HP <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Jos De Roo, AGFA,<jos.deroo@agfa.com>

This document is available in three sizes: medium (non-normative, this version), large (normative), and extra large (non-normative). 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.


Abstract

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.

Status of this document

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/draft/. Other resulting changes expected before Proposed Recommendation are indicated by editors' notes, and in Appendix D. 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 ??? 2003.

This document is subsidiary to the normative definition of the Web Ontology Language [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]).

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.


Table of Contents


1. Introduction

As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL) the Web Ontology Working Group provides a set of test cases. This document presents those test cases. They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification of, the normative definition of OWL found in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] 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.

1.1. Conformance and Scope

Various conformance levels are defined in this document in terms of [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].

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.

2. Deliverables (Normative)

The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:

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?]]

2.1. Normative Status

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.

3. Test Types (Normative)

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.

3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace

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. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD give a warning.

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.

3.2. Entailment Tests

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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax], (see also OWL Full entailment).

3.3. Non-Entailment Tests

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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax], (see also OWL Full entailment).

3.4. True Tests

These tests use one document. It is named conclusionsNNN.rdf. The conclusions follow from the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. These tests are a special case of the entailment tests in which the premises are empty.

3.5. OWL for OWL Tests

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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. The tests are intended to illustrate how OWL Full can be used to describe its own properties and classes.

3.6. Consistency Tests

These tests use one document. It is named consistentNNN.rdf. The document is consistent as defined by the OWL Semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], (see also OWL Full consistency).

3.7. Inconsistency Tests

These tests use one document. It is named inconsistentNNN.rdf. The document is not consistent as defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], (see also OWL Full consistency).

3.8. Import Entailment Tests

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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax], (see also OWL Full entailment).

3.9. Import Level Tests

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.

4. Conformance (Normative)

4.1. Document Conformance

4.1.1. Syntactic Conformance

An OWL Full document is any RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax].

An OWL DL document is an OWL Full document such that the imports closure [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] 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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax] of the corresponding RDF graph [RDF Concepts] is an OWL Lite ontology in RDF graph form.

4.1.2. Semantic Conformance

An OWL document is consistent if and only if there exists some model of the document that is consistent with the constraints specified by the relevant model theory (see [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]: OWL Lite and OWL DL, OWL Full).

4.2. Document Checker Conformance

This section uses the words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY as in [RFC 2119].

4.2.1. Syntax Checker

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.

In addition, an OWL Syntax Checker SHOULD give a warning if the RDF graph [RDF Concepts] corresponding to the document uses 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 syntax checker SHOULD report network errors occurring during the computation of the imports closure.

4.2.2. Consistency Checker

An OWL consistency checker takes a document as input, and outputs one word being Consistent, Inconsistent, or Unknown.

An OWL consistency checker SHOULD report network errors occurring during the computation of the imports closure.

An OWL consistency checker MUST return Consistent only when the input document is consistent and Inconsistent only when the input document is not consistent (this property is usually called soundness).

An OWL consistency checker is complete, with respect to its supported datatypes, if, given sufficient (but finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory) and the absence of network errors, it will always return either Consistent or Inconsistent (for an input document that does not use any unsupported datatypes); otherwise it is complete. It has been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a complete consistency checker (the languages are decidable), and that for OWL full it is not possible to construct a complete consistency checker (the language is undecidable).

An OWL consistency checker SHOULD minimally support at least the following XML Schema datatypes: integer, string.

Five different conformance classes of OWL consistency checker are defined.

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.

Note: Every OWL Full consistency checker is also an OWL DL consistency checker. Every OWL DL consistency checker is also an OWL Lite consistency checker. Every OWL Lite consistency checker can be trivially transformed into an OWL Full consistency checker.

The different levels are intended to be used to indicate the intended domain of a consistency checker.

Note: there are trivial implementations of these consistency checkers; for example, one which always outputs Unknown.

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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax] 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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax] over the set of all OWL DL documents.

Note: Complete OWL DL consistency checkers and Complete OWL Lite consistency checkers MAY return Unknown on an OWL DL document or OWL Lite document in the case where a resource limit has been exceeded.

5. Testing an OWL Implementation (Informative)

5.1. OWL Syntax Checkers

An OWL syntax checker when presented with any of the test files must return the indicated result.

5.2. OWL Consistency Checker

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.

6. Manifest Files (Informative)

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 use of the OWL namespace name.
otest:PositiveEntailmentTest
An entailment test.
otest:NegativeEntailmentTest
A non-entailment test.
otest:TrueTest
A true test.
otest:OWLforOWLTest
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).

7. The OWL Tests (Normative)

7.1. By Function

7.1.1. owl:AllDifferent

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <AllDifferent/Manifest001#test>
using AllDifferent to derive differentFrom
FullPremises: <AllDifferent/premises001>
FullConclusions: <AllDifferent/conclusions001>

7.1.2. owl:FunctionalProperty

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <FunctionalProperty/Manifest001#test>
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.
FullPremises: <FunctionalProperty/premises001>
FullConclusions: <FunctionalProperty/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <FunctionalProperty/Manifest002#test>
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.
FullPremises: <FunctionalProperty/premises002>
FullConclusions: <FunctionalProperty/conclusions002>

FullPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <FunctionalProperty/Manifest003#test>
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, then its inverse is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
FullPremises: <FunctionalProperty/premises003>
FullConclusions: <FunctionalProperty/conclusions003>

FullPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <FunctionalProperty/Manifest004#test>
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.
FullPremises: <FunctionalProperty/premises004>
FullConclusions: <FunctionalProperty/conclusions004>

7.1.3. owl:InverseFunctionalProperty

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest001#test>
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.
FullPremises: <InverseFunctionalProperty/premises001>
FullConclusions: <InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest002#test>
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.
FullPremises: <InverseFunctionalProperty/premises002>
FullConclusions: <InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions002>

FullPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest003#test>
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, then its inverse is an owl:FunctionalProperty.
FullPremises: <InverseFunctionalProperty/premises003>
FullConclusions: <InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions003>

FullPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest004#test>
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.
FullPremises: <InverseFunctionalProperty/premises004>
FullConclusions: <InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions004>

7.1.4. owl:Nothing

FullInconsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <Nothing/Manifest001#test>
The triple asserts something of type Nothing, however that is the empty class.
FullInconsistent: <Nothing/inconsistent001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <Nothing/Manifest002#test>
There is one empty owl:Class, and it is often called Nothing.
FullPremises: <Nothing/premises002>
FullConclusions: <Nothing/conclusions002>

7.1.5. owl:SymmetricProperty

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <SymmetricProperty/Manifest001#test>
A simple illustration of symmetric properties.
FullPremises: <SymmetricProperty/premises001>
FullConclusions: <SymmetricProperty/conclusions001>

7.1.6. owl:TransitiveProperty

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <TransitiveProperty/Manifest001#test>
A simple illustration of transitivity.
FullPremises: <TransitiveProperty/premises001>
FullConclusions: <TransitiveProperty/conclusions001>

7.1.7. owl:allValuesFrom

LitePositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <allValuesFrom/Manifest001#test>
A simple example.
LitePremises: <allValuesFrom/premises001>
LiteConclusions: <allValuesFrom/conclusions001>

LiteNegative Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <allValuesFrom/Manifest002#test>
See allValuesFrom.
LitePremises: <allValuesFrom/premises002>
LiteConclusions: <allValuesFrom/nonconclusions002>

7.1.8. owl:cardinality

LitePositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest001#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
LitePremises: <cardinality/premises001>
LiteConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions001>

LitePositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest002#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
LitePremises: <cardinality/premises002>
LiteConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions002>

DLPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest003#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
DLPremises: <cardinality/premises003>
DLConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions003>

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest004#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
DLPremises: <cardinality/premises004>
DLConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions004>

FullPositive Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest005#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
FullPremises: <cardinality/premises005>
FullConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions005>

7.1.9. owl:complementOf

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <complementOf/Manifest001#test>
complementOf is a SymmetricProperty.
FullPremises: <complementOf/premises001>
FullConclusions: <complementOf/conclusions001>

7.1.10. owl:differentFrom

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <differentFrom/Manifest001#test>
differentFrom is a SymmetricProperty.
FullPremises: <differentFrom/premises001>
FullConclusions: <differentFrom/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <differentFrom/Manifest002#test>
using distinctMembers to derive differentFrom
FullPremises: <differentFrom/premises002>
FullConclusions: <differentFrom/conclusions002>

7.1.11. owl:disjointWith

DLPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <disjointWith/Manifest001#test>
Disjoint classes have different members.
DLPremises: <disjointWith/premises001>
DLConclusions: <disjointWith/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <disjointWith/Manifest002#test>
Disjoint classes have different members; OWL Full.
FullPremises: <disjointWith/premises002>
FullConclusions: <disjointWith/conclusions002>

7.1.12. owl:distinctMembers

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <distinctMembers/Manifest001#test>
using distinctMembers to derive differentFrom
FullPremises: <distinctMembers/premises001>
FullConclusions: <distinctMembers/conclusions001>

7.1.13. owl:equivalentClass

LitePositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest001#test>
Two classes may be different names for the same set of individuals
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises001>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions001>

LitePositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest002#test>
Two classes may be different names for the same set of individuals
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises002>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions002>

LitePositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest003#test>
Two classes may be different names for the same set of individuals
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises003>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions003>

LitePositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest004#test>
Two classes with the same complete description are the same.
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises004>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions004>

LiteNegative Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest005#test>
Two classes with the same partial description are not the same.
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises005>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentClass/nonconclusions005>

7.1.14. owl:equivalentProperty

LitePositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest001#test>
hasLeader may be stated to be the equivalentProperty hasHead.
LitePremises: <equivalentProperty/premises001>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions001>

LitePositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest002#test>
A reasoner can also deduce that hasLeader is a subProperty of hasHead and hasHead is a subProperty of hasLeader.
LitePremises: <equivalentProperty/premises002>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions002>

LitePositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest003#test>
The inverse entailment also holds.
LitePremises: <equivalentProperty/premises003>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions003>

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest004#test>
If p and q have the same property extension then they p equivalentProperty q.
DLPremises: <equivalentProperty/premises004>
LiteConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions004>

FullPositive Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest005#test>
If p and q have the same property extension then they p equivalentProperty q.
FullPremises: <equivalentProperty/premises005>
FullConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions005>

FullPositive Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <equivalentProperty/Manifest006#test>
hasLeader may be stated to be the equivalentProperty hasHead.
FullPremises: <equivalentProperty/premises006>
FullConclusions: <equivalentProperty/conclusions006>

7.1.15. owl:imports

FullImport Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest001#test>
If a document imports another document, then it entails anything that is entailed by the conjunction of the two documents.
Fullhttp://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises001 <imports/premises001>
LiteImported Premises <imports/support001-A>
Fullhttp://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/conclusions001 <imports/conclusions001>

FullNegative Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest002#test>
If a premise document uses a namespace but does not import the document corresponding to the namespace, then the premises do not necessarily entail anything that is entailed by the conjunction of the two documents.
FullPremises: <imports/premises002>
FullConclusions: <imports/nonconclusions002>

FullImport Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest003#test>
If a document imports a document which in turn imports a third document, then it entails anything which is entailed by the conjunction of the statements from the three documents. That is, imports is transitive.
Fullhttp://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises003 <imports/premises003>
LiteImported Premises <imports/support003-A>
LiteImported Premises <imports/support003-B>
Fullhttp://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/conclusions003 <imports/conclusions003>

FullImports Level Test:004
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest004#test>
Importing OWL Full documents may change the level of OWL Lite or OWL DL documents.
FullImported document: <imports/imports004>
FullMain document: <imports/main004>

DLImports Level Test:005
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest005#test>
OWL DL documents cannot be imported by OWL Lite documents.
DLImported document: <imports/imports005>
DLMain document: <imports/main005>

LiteImports Level Test:006
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest006#test>
The type declarations required by semantic layering can be imported into an OWL Lite or OWL DL file.
LiteImported document: <imports/imports006>
LiteMain document: <imports/main006>

LiteImports Level Test:007
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest007#test>
The type declarations required by semantic layering can be imported into an OWL Lite or OWL DL file.
LiteImported document: <imports/imports007>
LiteMain document: <imports/main007>

LiteImports Level Test:008
Description: (informative) <imports/Manifest008#test>
Some RDFS files can have type declarations added to make a useful OWL Lite file.
FullImported document: <imports/imports008>
LiteMain document: <imports/main008>

7.1.16. owl:intersectionOf

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <intersectionOf/Manifest001#test>
The order of the classes in an intersectionOf construct is unimportant.
FullPremises: <intersectionOf/premises001>
FullConclusions: <intersectionOf/conclusions001>

7.1.17. owl:inverseOf

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <inverseOf/Manifest001#test>
If the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is an instance of the named property.
FullPremises: <inverseOf/premises001>
FullConclusions: <inverseOf/conclusions001>

7.1.18. owl:maxCardinality

FullInconsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <maxCardinality/Manifest001#test>
A property with maximum cardinality of two cannot take three distinct values on some subject node.
FullInconsistent: <maxCardinality/inconsistent001>

FullInconsistent document.002
Description: (informative) <maxCardinality/Manifest002#test>
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.
FullInconsistent: <maxCardinality/inconsistent002>

7.1.19. owl:oneOf

FullConsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <oneOf/Manifest001#test>
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.
FullConsistent: <oneOf/consistent001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <oneOf/Manifest002#test>
oneOf describes a class by enumerating its individuals.
FullPremises: <oneOf/premises002>
FullConclusions: <oneOf/conclusions002>

FullPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <oneOf/Manifest003#test>
The order of the instances in an oneOf construct is unimportant.
FullPremises: <oneOf/premises003>
FullConclusions: <oneOf/conclusions003>

7.1.20. owl:unionOf

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <unionOf/Manifest001#test>
A union is a superclass of its parts.
FullPremises: <unionOf/premises001>
FullConclusions: <unionOf/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <unionOf/Manifest002#test>
A union behaves quite like set theoretic union.
FullPremises: <unionOf/premises002>
FullConclusions: <unionOf/conclusions002>

7.2. By Issue

7.2.1. Qualified Restrictions

LiteIllegal use of OWL namespace.001
Description: (informative) <I3.2/Manifest001#test>
A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
LiteIncorrect: <I3.2/bad001>

LiteIllegal use of OWL namespace.002
Description: (informative) <I3.2/Manifest002#test>
A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
LiteIncorrect: <I3.2/bad002>

LiteIllegal use of OWL namespace.003
Description: (informative) <I3.2/Manifest003#test>
A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
LiteIncorrect: <I3.2/bad003>

7.2.2. UnambiguousProperty

LiteIllegal use of OWL namespace.001
Description: (informative) <I3.4/Manifest001#test>
This is not legal OWL. The name UnambiguousProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
LiteIncorrect: <I3.4/bad001>

7.2.3. UniqueProp BadName

LiteIllegal use of OWL namespace.001
Description: (informative) <I4.1/Manifest001#test>
This is not legal OWL. The name UniqueProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty.
LiteIncorrect: <I4.1/bad001>

7.2.4. EquivalentTo

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <I4.6/Manifest001#test>
sameAs and sameIndividualAs are equivalent.
FullPremises: <I4.6/premises001>
LiteConclusions: <I4.6/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <I4.6/Manifest002#test>
sameAs and sameIndividualAs are equivalent.
FullPremises: <I4.6/premises002>
FullConclusions: <I4.6/conclusions002>

7.2.5. Uniform treatment of literal data values

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <I5.1/Manifest001#test>
stateCode example using an inverseFunctionalProperty and literals
FullPremises: <I5.1/premises001>
FullConclusions: <I5.1/conclusions001>

7.2.6. IF-or-IFF-property-properties

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <I5.24/Manifest001#test>
This entailment is similar to one that does not hold in RDFS.
FullPremises: <I5.24/premises001>
FullConclusions: <I5.24/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <I5.24/Manifest004#test>
This is a typical definition of range from description logic. It works both ways.
FullPremises: <I5.24/premises004>
FullConclusions: <I5.24/conclusions004>

7.2.7. Semantic-Layering

FullConsistent document.005
Description: (informative) <I5.3/Manifest005#test>
Any RDF/XML document is in OWL Full.
FullConsistent: <I5.3/consistent005>

LiteConsistent document.006
Description: (informative) <I5.3/Manifest006#test>
A minimal OWL Lite version of test 005.
LiteConsistent: <I5.3/consistent006>

FullConsistent document.007
Description: (informative) <I5.3/Manifest007#test>
Any RDF/XML document is in OWL Full.
FullConsistent: <I5.3/consistent007>

LiteConsistent document.008
Description: (informative) <I5.3/Manifest008#test>
An OWL Lite version of test 007.
LiteConsistent: <I5.3/consistent008>

FullConsistent document.009
Description: (informative) <I5.3/Manifest009#test>
The use of blank nodes in OWL DL and OWL Lite is restricted.
FullConsistent: <I5.3/consistent009>

7.2.8. List syntax or semantics

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <I5.5/Manifest001#test>
rdf:first is a FunctionalProperty.
FullPremises: <I5.5/premises001>
FullConclusions: <I5.5/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <I5.5/Manifest002#test>
rdf:rest is a FunctionalProperty.
FullPremises: <I5.5/premises002>
FullConclusions: <I5.5/conclusions002>

FullInconsistent document.003
Description: (informative) <I5.5/Manifest003#test>
rdf:nil cannot have an rdf:rest property.
FullInconsistent: <I5.5/inconsistent003>

FullInconsistent document.004
Description: (informative) <I5.5/Manifest004#test>
rdf:nil cannot have an rdf:first property.
FullInconsistent: <I5.5/inconsistent004>

A. Test Creation, Approval and Modification (Informative)

A.1. Creation

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:

A.2. Approval

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.

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.

A.3. Modification

The editors may make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests. This includes:

B. Stylistic Preferences (Informative)

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.

B.1. Use of RDF/XML

Tests should normally be expressed in RDF/XML.

The following RDF/XML grammar rules [RDF/XML Syntax] are not used:

  1. Property attributes.
  2. Bag ID.
  3. rdf:parseType="Resource".

B.2. Use of xml:base

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.

B.3. Use of .rdf Suffix

Test and manifest files should use the ".rdf" suffix. URIs should not. The URL used for xml:base declarations does not have a suffix.

B.4. Use of example Domains

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").

B.5. Copyright

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. $
-->

B.6. Description

The description should:

The description should be included as an XML comment in each test file, and be included as RDF content in the Manifest file.

B.7. Directory Structure

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].

B.8. Test Numbering

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.

B.9. Triple Format of Test Data

Both the approved and proposed tests are shown both in RDF/XML, which is their normative form, and in a triples format. This lists the triples as subject, predicate and object, similar to the N-triples format described in [RDF Test Cases]; but using qnames to stand in for URI references.

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:

rdf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
owl
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
xsd
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
first
The URL of the first file concatenated with #. The first file is that named premisesNNN.rdf, badNNN.rdf, consistentNNN.rdf, inconsistentNNN.rdf or importsNNN.rdf depending on the test type. (Not used for true tests or OWL for OWL tests ).
second
The URL of the second file concatenated with #. The second file is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, nonconclusionsNNN.rdf or mainNNN.rdf depending on the test type.

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/2001/XMLSchema#> .

Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.

C. Proposed Tests (Informative)

C.1. By Function

C.1.1. owl:FunctionalProperty

FullPositive Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <FunctionalProperty/Manifest005#test>
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty then an OWL object has at most one value for prop.
FullPremises: <FunctionalProperty/premises005>
FullConclusions: <FunctionalProperty/conclusions005>

C.1.2. owl:cardinality

FullPositive Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <cardinality/Manifest006#test>
An owl:cardinality constraint is simply shorthand for a pair of owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality constraints.
FullPremises: <cardinality/premises006>
FullConclusions: <cardinality/conclusions006>

C.1.3. owl:equivalentClass

DLPositive Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest006#test>
De Morgan's law.
LitePremises: <equivalentClass/premises006>
DLConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions006>

FullPositive Entailment Test:007
Description: (informative) <equivalentClass/Manifest007#test>
De Morgan's law.
FullPremises: <equivalentClass/premises007>
FullConclusions: <equivalentClass/conclusions007>

C.1.4. owl:oneOf

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <oneOf/Manifest004#test>
This test illustrates the use of dataRange in OWL DL. This test combines some of the ugliest features of XML, RDF and OWL.
DLPremises: <oneOf/premises004>
DLConclusions: <oneOf/conclusions004>

C.1.5. owl:someValuesFrom

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <someValuesFrom/Manifest001#test>
A simple example.
FullPremises: <someValuesFrom/premises001>
FullConclusions: <someValuesFrom/conclusions001>

FullNegative Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <someValuesFrom/Manifest002#test>
See allValuesFrom
FullPremises: <someValuesFrom/premises002>
FullConclusions: <someValuesFrom/nonconclusions002>

C.2. By Issue

C.2.1. Uniform treatment of literal data values

FullConsistent document.010
Description: (informative) <I5.1/Manifest010#test>
There are 127 bytes that are also unsigned integers.
FullConsistent: <I5.1/consistent010>

C.2.2. Language Compliance Levels

LiteConsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest001#test>
A class like owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions.
LiteConsistent: <I5.2/consistent001>

DLPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest002#test>
A class like owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions.
LitePremises: <I5.2/premises002>
DLConclusions: <I5.2/conclusions002>

LiteConsistent document.003
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest003#test>
The complement of a class can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions.
LiteConsistent: <I5.2/consistent003>

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest004#test>
The complement of a class can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions.
LitePremises: <I5.2/premises004>
DLConclusions: <I5.2/conclusions004>

DLConsistent document.005
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest005#test>
The union of two classes can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions, and owl:intersectionOf.
LiteConsistent: <I5.2/consistent005>

DLPositive Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest006#test>
The union of two classes can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions, and owl:intersectionOf.
LitePremises: <I5.2/premises006>
DLConclusions: <I5.2/conclusions006>

FullConsistent document.010
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest010#test>
RDF Container vocabulary is excluded from OWL Lite and OWL DL. The informal semantics indicated by the comment are not respected by the formal machinery of OWL.
FullConsistent: <I5.2/consistent010>

LiteConsistent document.011
Description: (informative) <I5.2/Manifest011#test>
User defined container vocabulary is included in OWL Lite and OWL DL. The informal semantics indicated by the comment are not respected by the formal machinery of OWL.
LiteConsistent: <I5.2/consistent011>

C.2.3. IF-or-IFF-property-properties

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <I5.24/Manifest002#test>
OWL, unlike RDFS, uses iff semantics for range.
FullPremises: <I5.24/premises002>
FullConclusions: <I5.24/conclusions002>

FullPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <I5.24/Manifest003#test>
This is a typical definition of range from description logic.
FullPremises: <I5.24/premises003>
FullConclusions: <I5.24/conclusions003>

C.2.4. Datatypes

DLInconsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest001#test>
There are only 256 different values for xsd:byte.
DLInconsistent: <I5.8/inconsistent001>

DLConsistent document.002
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest002#test>
There are 256 different values for xsd:byte.
DLConsistent: <I5.8/consistent002>

DLInconsistent document.003
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest003#test>
There are only 128 different values of xsd:byte that are also xsd:unsignedInt.
DLInconsistent: <I5.8/inconsistent003>

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest004#test>
There are precisely 128 different values of xsd:byte that are also xsd:unsignedInt.
DLPremises: <I5.8/premises004>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions004>

DLNegative Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest005#test>
There are 128 different values of xsd:byte that are also xsd:unsignedInt.
DLPremises: <I5.8/premises005>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/nonconclusions005>

LitePositive Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest006#test>
All xsd:byte are xsd:short.
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises006>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions006>

LiteNegative Entailment Test:007
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest007#test>
-1 is an xsd:short that is not an xsd:unsignedByte.
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises007>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/nonconclusions007>

LitePositive Entailment Test:008
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest008#test>
-1 is an xsd:short that is not an xsd:unsignedShort; 100000 is an xsd:unsignedInt that is not an xsd:unsignedShort; but there are no xsd:unsignedShort which are neither xsd:short nor xsd:unsignedInt
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises008>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions008>

LitePositive Entailment Test:009
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest009#test>
0 is the only xsd:nonNegativeInteger which is also an xsd:nonPositiveInteger. 0 is an xsd:short.
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises009>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions009>

LitePositive Entailment Test:010
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest010#test>
0 is the only xsd:nonNegativeInteger which is also an xsd:nonPositiveInteger.
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises010>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions010>

LitePositive Entailment Test:011
Description: (informative) <I5.8/Manifest011#test>
The empty graph entails that xsd:integer and xsd:string are a rdfs:Datatype
LitePremises: <I5.8/premises011>
LiteConclusions: <I5.8/conclusions011>

C.3. Additional Description Logic Tests

These tests are ones that are either known from the literature (for instance, from [Heinsohn et al.]), or from test suites contributed by Network Inference.

The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:

oiled
http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#

In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations, this as as follows:

Namespaces:
@prefix oiled: <http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test#> .

C.3.1. Extended Satisfiability Tests

These are general satisfiability tests that are intended to test the interaction of role hierarchies, disjoint concepts and other things within an OWL reasoner.

DLPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest001#test>
DL Test: fact1.1 If a, b and c are disjoint, then: (a and b) or (b and c) or (c and a) is unsatisfiable.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises001>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions001>

DLPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest002#test>
DL Test: fact2.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises002>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions002>

DLPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest003#test>
DL Test: fact3.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises003>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions003>

DLPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest004#test>
DL Test: fact4.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises004>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions004>

DLNegative Entailment Test:005
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest005#test>
DL Test: fact4.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises005>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions005>

DLNegative Entailment Test:006
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest006#test>
DL Test: t1.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises006>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions006>

DLPositive Entailment Test:007
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest007#test>
DL Test: t1.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises007>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions007>

DLPositive Entailment Test:008
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest008#test>
DL Test: t1.3
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises008>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions008>

DLNegative Entailment Test:009
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest009#test>
DL Test: t10.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises009>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions009>

DLPositive Entailment Test:010
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest010#test>
DL Test: t10.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises010>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions010>

DLPositive Entailment Test:011
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest011#test>
DL Test: t10.3
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises011>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions011>

DLPositive Entailment Test:012
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest012#test>
DL Test: t10.4
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises012>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions012>

DLPositive Entailment Test:013
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest013#test>
DL Test: t10.5
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises013>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions013>

DLPositive Entailment Test:014
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest014#test>
DL Test: t11.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises014>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions014>

DLPositive Entailment Test:015
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest015#test>
DL Test: t12.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises015>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions015>

DLNegative Entailment Test:016
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest016#test>
DL Test: t2.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises016>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions016>

DLPositive Entailment Test:017
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest017#test>
DL Test: t2.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises017>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions017>

DLNegative Entailment Test:018
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest018#test>
DL Test: t3.1 There are 90 possible partitions in the satisfiable case
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises018>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions018>

DLPositive Entailment Test:019
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest019#test>
DL Test: t3.2 There are 301 possible partitions in the unsatisfiable case
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises019>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions019>

DLNegative Entailment Test:020
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest020#test>
DL Test: t3a.1 there are 1,701 possible partitions in the satisfiable case
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises020>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions020>

DLNegative Entailment Test:021
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest021#test>
DL Test: t3a.2 There are 7,770 possible partitions in the unsatisfiable case
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises021>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions021>

DLPositive Entailment Test:022
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest022#test>
DL Test: t3a.3 There are 42,525 possible partitions in the satisfiable case
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises022>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions022>

DLPositive Entailment Test:023
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest023#test>
DL Test: t4.1 Dynamic blocking example
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises023>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions023>

DLNegative Entailment Test:024
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest024#test>
DL Test: t5.1 Non-finite model example from paper The concept should be coherent but has no finite model
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises024>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions024>

DLNegative Entailment Test:025
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest025#test>
DL Test: t5f.1 Non-finite model example from paper The concept should be coherent but has no finite model
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises025>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions025>

DLPositive Entailment Test:026
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest026#test>
DL Test: t6.1 Double blocking example. The concept should be incoherent but needs double blocking
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises026>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions026>

DLPositive Entailment Test:027
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest027#test>
DL Test: t6f.1 Double blocking example. The concept should be incoherent but needs double blocking
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises027>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions027>

DLNegative Entailment Test:028
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest028#test>
DL Test: t7.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises028>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions028>

DLPositive Entailment Test:029
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest029#test>
DL Test: t7.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises029>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions029>

DLPositive Entailment Test:030
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest030#test>
DL Test: t7.3
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises030>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions030>

DLNegative Entailment Test:031
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest031#test>
DL Test: t7f.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises031>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions031>

DLPositive Entailment Test:032
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest032#test>
DL Test: t7f.2
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises032>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions032>

DLPositive Entailment Test:033
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest033#test>
DL Test: t7f.3
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises033>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions033>

DLNegative Entailment Test:034
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest034#test>
DL Test: t8.1
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises034>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions034>

C.3.2. Heinsohn's Tests

See [Heinsohn et al.].

DLPositive Entailment Test:101
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest101#test>
DL Test: heinsohn1.1 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises101>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions101>

DLPositive Entailment Test:102
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest102#test>
DL Test: heinsohn1.2 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises102>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions102>

DLPositive Entailment Test:103
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest103#test>
DL Test: heinsohn1.3 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises103>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions103>

DLPositive Entailment Test:104
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest104#test>
DL Test: heinsohn1.4 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises104>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions104>

DLPositive Entailment Test:105
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest105#test>
DL Test: heinsohn2.1 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by number restrictions
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises105>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions105>

DLPositive Entailment Test:106
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest106#test>
DL Test: heinsohn2.2 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by number restrictions
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises106>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions106>

DLPositive Entailment Test:107
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest107#test>
DL Test: heinsohn3.1 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by number restrictions and role hierarchy
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises107>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions107>

DLPositive Entailment Test:108
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest108#test>
DL Test: heinsohn3.2 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by number restrictions and role hierarchy
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises108>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions108>

DLPositive Entailment Test:109
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest109#test>
DL Test: heinsohn3c.1 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests incoherency caused by number restrictions and role hierarchy
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises109>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions109>

DLPositive Entailment Test:110
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest110#test>
DL Test: heinsohn4.1 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests role restrictions
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises110>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions110>

DLPositive Entailment Test:111
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest111#test>
DL Test: heinsohn4.2 Tbox tests from Heinsohn et al., AI 68 (1994) pp367-397 Tests role restrictions
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises111>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions111>

C.3.3. DL 98 Instance Tests

These tests have been ported from the DL 98 tests [DL 98 Systems Comparison].

DLPositive Entailment Test:201
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest201#test>
DL Test: k_branch ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises201>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions201>

DLPositive Entailment Test:202
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest202#test>
DL Test: k_d4 ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises202>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions202>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

DLPositive Entailment Test:203
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest203#test>
DL Test: k_dum ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises203>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions203>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

DLPositive Entailment Test:204
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest204#test>
DL Test: k_grz ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises204>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions204>

DLPositive Entailment Test:205
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest205#test>
DL Test: k_lin ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises205>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions205>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

DLPositive Entailment Test:206
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest206#test>
DL Test: k_path ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises206>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions206>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

DLPositive Entailment Test:207
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest207#test>
DL Test: k_ph ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises207>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions207>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

DLPositive Entailment Test:208
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest208#test>
DL Test: k_poly ABox test from DL98 systems comparison.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises208>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions208>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://oiled.man.example.uk/test#> is shown using both oiled: and ns0:.

C.3.4. The 3 SAT Problem

These tests show how the classic 3 SAT problem can be encoded in OWL DL. The comment before each test gives the 3 SAT problem in the [DIMACS] format.

DLConsistent document.501
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest501#test>
c genAlea with seed 1366722535
p cnf 9 45
7 -9 -8 0
1 2 -8 0
4 7 -5 0
2 3 -1 0
-1 5 8 0
-8 -6 -3 0
-3 -8 7 0
-3 6 8 0
-4 -6 8 0
6 7 3 0
3 6 -9 0
-5 -2 3 0
5 8 2 0
-2 -7 -3 0
-6 -8 -5 0
2 7 -3 0
9 -1 -2 0
1 7 -6 0
1 9 -3 0
-8 -9 -2 0
-9 -8 2 0
5 8 4 0
-7 2 5 0
-1 7 -4 0
7 -8 4 0
-3 2 -6 0
1 -2 -9 0
7 3 -2 0
-7 8 4 0
1 -7 -5 0
-5 4 -3 0
6 7 -1 0
-1 7 -9 0
3 2 6 0
8 3 -7 0
-1 9 -8 0
5 -9 -7 0
-7 3 -9 0
3 -1 -2 0
6 1 4 0
6 -7 5 0
8 -6 3 0
5 -2 6 0
8 3 -5 0
-2 -4 -9 0
DLConsistent: <description-logic/consistent501>

DLInconsistent document.502
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest502#test>
c genAlea with seed 67700557
p cnf 9 45
1 2 -4 0
-3 6 -4 0
9 -4 5 0
4 -6 -2 0
-2 -3 1 0
-3 8 7 0
-8 -2 3 0
-7 -6 9 0
1 -4 -6 0
-8 -5 -3 0
4 3 6 0
2 -1 4 0
-3 8 2 0
6 -2 9 0
7 -9 -2 0
2 -5 -7 0
5 2 9 0
6 -2 -7 0
-9 3 -2 0
1 7 4 0
-4 1 9 0
2 1 -6 0
7 -4 9 0
-5 3 -9 0
-4 9 -8 0
4 3 9 0
-7 9 5 0
4 1 3 0
-5 8 7 0
8 -7 3 0
4 -8 6 0
4 6 -5 0
-6 1 -9 0
1 9 -6 0
9 -8 3 0
6 3 -4 0
8 -4 6 0
-3 5 -8 0
-9 4 3 0
8 -4 2 0
-5 -2 -9 0
-7 -3 -4 0
-9 -4 -8 0
6 -4 -1 0
6 -7 -8 0
DLInconsistent: <description-logic/inconsistent502>

C.3.5. Extended Cardinality Testing

DLPositive Entailment Test:901
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest901#test>
This entailment can be replicated for any three natural numbers i, j, k such that i+j >= k. In this example, they are chosen as 2, 3 and 5.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises901>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions901>

DLNegative Entailment Test:902
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest902#test>
This non-entailment can be replicated for any three natural numbers i, j, k such that i+j < k. In this example, they are chosen as 2, 3 and 6.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises902>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions902>

DLPositive Entailment Test:903
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest903#test>
This entailment can be replicated for any three natural numbers i, j, k such that i+j >= k. In this example, they are chosen as 200, 300 and 500.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises903>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/conclusions903>

DLNegative Entailment Test:904
Description: (informative) <description-logic/Manifest904#test>
This non-entailment can be replicated for any three natural numbers i, j, k such that i+j < k. In this example, they are chosen as 200, 300 and 600.
DLPremises: <description-logic/premises904>
DLConclusions: <description-logic/nonconclusions904>

C.4. Miscellaneous Tests

These tests are ones that do not fit any other category. Some are taken from the [OWL Guide]; others reflect various aspects of OWL, that were not formal issues addressed by the working group.

C.4.1. Examples from the OWL Guide

These tests are taken from the [OWL Guide].

FullConsistent document.001
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest001#test>
Wine example taken from the guide.
FullConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent001>
Errors: (informative)
Preifx xsd: represents both uri <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#> and <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>.
Can the suffix be removed from <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/food.owl>?
Can the suffix be removed from <http://www.example.org/wine-020303.owl>?
Uri <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/wine#> is shown using both : and vin:.

FullConsistent document.002
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest002#test>
Food example taken from the guide.
FullConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent002>
Errors: (informative)
Uri <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/food#> is shown using both : and food:.
Third and subsequent comments ignored in consistent002.

C.4.2. Detailed OWL Lite and OWL DL Syntax

These tests illustrate detailed points about the mapping rules in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], and the syntax of OWL Lite and OWL DL.

FullConsistent document.101
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest101#test>
This document is OWL Lite according to the 3rd February working draft and to the 15th February editor's draft .
FullConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent101>

DLConsistent document.102
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest102#test>
This document is OWL DL according to the 3rd February working draft and to the 15th February editor's draft .
DLConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent102>

FullConsistent document.103
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest103#test>
This document is OWL DL according to the 3rd February working draft and to the 15th February editor's draft .
FullConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent103>

C.4.3. Concerning rdf:XMLLiteral

These tests illustrate the use of rdf:XMLLiteral.

LiteConsistent document.201
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest201#test>
This test shows how user labels in a variety of languages can be used. Note the use of ruby annotation.
LiteConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent201>

LiteConsistent document.202
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest202#test>
This shows that insignificant whitespace in an rdf:XMLLiteral is not significant within OWL.
LiteConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent202>

LiteInconsistent document.203
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest203#test>
This shows that initial whitespace in an rdf:XMLLiteral is significant within OWL.
LiteInconsistent: <miscellaneous/inconsistent203>

C.4.4. Annotations

These tests concern the semantics of annotations.

FullNegative Entailment Test:301
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest301#test>
Annotations participate a little in the semantics.
FullPremises: <miscellaneous/premises301>
FullConclusions: <miscellaneous/nonconclusions301>

LiteNegative Entailment Test:302
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest302#test>
Annotations participate a little in the semantics.
LitePremises: <miscellaneous/premises302>
LiteConclusions: <miscellaneous/nonconclusions302>

LiteConsistent document.303
Description: (informative) <miscellaneous/Manifest303#test>
dc:creator may be declared as an annotation property.
LiteConsistent: <miscellaneous/consistent303>

C.5. Extra Credit (Informative)

There is no expectation that any implementation will successfully 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 Semantics and Abstract Syntax], 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.

C.5.1. Arithmetic in OWL

Tests that show the relationship between OWL and simple arithmetic.

FullPositive Entailment Test:001
Description: (informative) <extra-credit/Manifest001#test>
This test shows a relationship between integer addition and OWL Full.
FullPremises: <extra-credit/premises001>
FullConclusions: <extra-credit/conclusions001>

FullPositive Entailment Test:002
Description: (informative) <extra-credit/Manifest002#test>
This test shows a relationship between integer multiplication and OWL Full.
FullPremises: <extra-credit/premises002>
FullConclusions: <extra-credit/conclusions002>

FullPositive Entailment Test:003
Description: (informative) <extra-credit/Manifest003#test>
Prime factorization can be expressed in OWL Full.
FullPremises: <extra-credit/premises003>
FullConclusions: <extra-credit/conclusions003>

FullPositive Entailment Test:004
Description: (informative) <extra-credit/Manifest004#test>
A more difficult prime factorization example.
FullPremises: <extra-credit/premises004>
FullConclusions: <extra-credit/conclusions004>

D. Editorial Issues (Informative)

Last Call comments regarding any of these issues are welcome. In particular, the existence of an issue in this section does not constitute a promise that this will be addressed before the Proposed Recommendation.

D.1. Arising from Automated Checking

Most of these issues will be ignored.

Unimplemented - non trivial ManifestLoader.getText()
Can suffix be removed from URI: false.rdf
Jtidy reported 7 errors in webont-issues.

D.2. Document Structure

This document is too long. The intend is to restructure it before Proposed Recommendation. A minimal restructuring is to omit the longer tests from this document, and to have an alternative version which includes all the tests.

It is desirable to provide a PDF version that prints with correct page boundaries.

D.3. Test Specific Issues

Exhaustive coverage of OWL features is desired.

Tests reflecting more issue resolutions are desired.

Defects in the tests reported by Sean Bechhofer.

The TrueTests category needs to be used - there are a few tests that should be changed. The OWL For OWL test category should be used, new tests need to be created.

Many of the DL tests can be converted into difficult Lite tests.

There are a number of outstanding ACTIONs in WebOnt telecon minutes, or suggestions in the WebOnt e-mail for creation of tests to be added to the test suite.

In the extra credit section, the tests concerning prime factorization need fixing. Other possible tests may concern dominos and transitiveproperties with cardinality constraints or may concern peculiar extensions of the OWL vocabulary.

D.4. Other

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.


Acknowledgments (Informative)

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: Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Jeff Heflin, Jonathan Borden, Guide editors, Dan Connolly, Martin Drst, Masayasu Ishikawa, and the editors.

Ian Horrocks contributed to the conformance section of this document.

This document is the result of extensive discussions within the Web Ontology Working Group as a whole. The members of this group working group included: Yasser al Safadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Frederik Brysse, Stephen Buswell, Peter Crowther, Jos De Roo, David De Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jérôme Euzenat, Dieter Fensel, Tim Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Pat Hayes, Jeff Heflin, Ziv Hellman, James Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian Horrocks, Francesco Iannuzzelli, Mario Jeckle, Ruediger Klein, Ora Lassila, Alexander Maedche, Massimo Marchiori, Deborah McGuinness, Libby Miller, Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Laurent Olivry , Peter Patel-Schneider, Martin Pike, Marwan Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Shimizu Noboru, Michael Sintek, Michael Smith, Ned Smith, John Stanton, Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman ter Horst, Lynne R. Thompson, David Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Raphael Volz, Evan Wallace, Christopher Welty, and John Yanosy.

References

Normative

[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks. W3C Working Draft 03 February 2003. Latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.
[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 23 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 23 January 2003. Latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.

Informative

[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]
OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. Michael K. Smith, Chris Welty, Deborah McGuinness, eds. 10 February 2003. 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. 18 Dec 2002.
[RDF Test Cases]
RDF Test Cases, A. Barstow, D. Beckett, J. Grant, Editors. Work in progress. World Wide Web Consortium, 23 January 2003. This version of the RDF Test Cases is http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-testcases-20030123/. 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.
[Heinsohn et al.]
AI 68 (1994) pp367-397.
[DIMACS]
Satisfiability Suggested Format challenge@dimacs.rutgers.edu http://www.satlib.org/Benchmarks/SAT/satformat.ps May 8, 1993.
[DL 98 Systems Comparison]
DL Systems Comparison at 1998 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 98). Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Ian Horrocks. June, 1998.