PRE-PUBLICATION DRAFT. This document is being prepared for
possible publication by the W3C, but it may change, be
delayed, or never be published. The "Version" URIs and
"Status of this Document" section may reflect its
planned location and status, not present reality.
- This version:
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-test/
- Latest version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
- Previous version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-test-20031215/
- Editors:
- Jeremy J. Carroll, HP
<jjc@hpl.hp.com>
-
Jos De Roo, AGFA,<jos.deroo@agfa.com>
The normative version of this document
is a compound document.
Non-normative versions consisting of a single HTML file are available
in three sizes:
medium (this version),
large,
and extra large.
The tests of this document are also available in these non-normative formats:
Zip archive of approved 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.
See the normative compound HTML document for document status.
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 subsidiary.
This document is one component of the description of OWL, the Web Ontology
Language, being produced by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group.
The Document Roadmap section
of the
[OWL Overview] describes each of the different parts
and how they fit together.
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.
In the non-normative appendices, this document also
describes the
process for creation and approval of these tests.
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,
since they are silent
on several important issues. This document cannot be considered a
complete specification of 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:
- The 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 applied to which
test files.
- The non-normative alternative forms of the test files.
This zip file is a non-normative alternative format.
-
A
Manifest
file describing all the tests.
- 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.
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 Syntax]), and the supporting documentation.
The
Web Ontology Working Group
has seen adequate implementation experience of
most of the tests in this document. Some, however, are particularly difficult
to implement efficiently. These are labelled as extra credit tests. Such
tests indicate the semantics of OWL, but may use features that are not
sufficiently widely implemented to provide good interoperability.
A general case of extra credit tests is that all OWL Full
nonentailments
and consistency tests are extra credit tests.
This is because typical OWL Full
implementations prove entailments but cannot prove nonentailments.
Extra credit tests are labelled with "EC" within this document and with
status
EXTRACREDIT in the manifest files.
The name indicates that there is no expectation that any implementation will
successfully run such tests and any that do gain extra credit.
Each test consists of 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.
The metadata also indicates
the language levels appropriate for each test and each document in each test.
For each RDF/XML document, one language level is indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full,
as given by the syntactic rules in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
For semantic tests, one or two language levels are indicated.
If the language level OWL Full is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
If the language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
If the language level OWL Lite is indicated for a semantic test, then the test only uses
features within the OWL Lite sublanguage.
Some of the tests require that certain
datatypes are, or are not, supported in the
datatype map
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
These are indicated with the test.
Other datatypes which are used in the test
are also indicated: the test applies whether or not these are supported in the
datatype map .
The datatypes
xsd:integer, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes]
are not indicated, even when used or required, since they
must be supported.
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.
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).
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).
Exceptionally, test imports-002 includes a
third document.
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.
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.
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).
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).
These tests use more than two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
another is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, the rest have names
like supportNNN-A.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).
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 any
RDF/XML document [RDF 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.
An OWL Lite or
OWL DL document D
is
OWL DL consistent with respect to
a datatype map
T if
and only if there is some
abstract OWL interpretation
I with respect
to T such that I
satisfies
an abstract ontology O
corresponding to D,
in which O has a
separated vocabulary;
(see
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]).
An
OWL Full document
D is
OWL Full consistent
with respect to a
datatype map
T, if and only if there is some
OWL Full interpretation I with respect to T such that
I satisfies all
the RDF graphs in some
imports closed collection containing an RDF
graph corresponding to D.
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 returns one word being one of Lite,
DL, Full, Other.
The return value 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 report 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.
An OWL consistency checker
takes a document as input, and returns 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 provide a means to determine
the datatypes
supported by its
datatype map,
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]; for example, by listing them in its
supporting documentation.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST provide a means to determine
the model theory
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], it uses (either the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
or the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics);
for example, in its
supporting documentation.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST be sound:
it MUST
return Consistent only when the
input document is consistent and Inconsistent only when the input
document is not consistent, with respect to the datatype map of the checker.
If an input
document uses datatypes that are not
supported by the datatype map of
an OWL
consistency checker then it MAY report a warning.
An OWL consistency checker is
complete and terminating,
if, given sufficient (but
finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory)
and the absence of
network errors, it will always return
either Consistent or Inconsistent. It has
been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a
complete and terminating consistency checker
(the languages are decidable),
and that
for OWL full it is not possible to construct a complete and terminating
consistency
checker (the language is undecidable,
[Practical Reasoning]).
The
datatype map of
an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support at least
xsd:integer, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes].
An OWL consistency checker SHOULD NOT return
Unknown.
Unknown, while sometimes needed, is not
a desired response.
Four 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, and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL DL consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL DL document as input and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL Full consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Full document as input and uses the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics.
The
datatype map of an
OWL Full consistency checker
MUST also support
rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts],
see [RDF Semantics].
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker
is an OWL Lite consistency checker that
is complete and terminating.
Note:
A
complete OWL Lite consistency checker
MAY return Unknown for an OWL Lite document in the case where
a resource limit has been exceeded.
Note:
The usage of the word 'complete' in this section
follows the conventions of the description logic community.
In some other communities the word 'complete'
is used in a weaker sense, refering to the
detection
of inconsistency by logical inference systems.
An OWL syntax checker
when presented with any of the test files
must return the indicated result.
This includes the
extra credit tests.
An OWL consistency checker
can be tested using appropriate consistency
and inconsistency tests.
Appropriate tests are those
of an appropriate level and for which the checker has appropriate datatype support.
The level of the test indicates the semantic theory being used,
which may differ from the level of the file. For example, test Thing-004
contains an OWL DL file which is consistent as an OWL DL consistency test, but
inconsistent as an OWL Full consistency test.
An OWL consistency checker
has
appropriate datatype support
for a test if both:
- Its
datatype map,
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
supports all the datatypes that are required to be supported by the test.
-
If there are any datatypes that are required to be not supported by the test,
then they must not be supported by the
datatype map of the checker (in some cases it may be sufficient
for only some of them to be not supported).
An OWL Lite consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Lite consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL DL consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL Full consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Full consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
The corresponding inconsistency tests must return
Inconsistent or Unknown.
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker
should not return Unknown on the OWL Lite
consistency
or inconsistency tests, regardless of the use of
unsupported datatypes.
The above constraints also apply to
extra credit tests.
Consistency checkers that return the correct answer (i.e. not Unknown)
gain the extra credit.
The Manifest file follows the RDF schema developed
for the RDF Test Cases [RDF Tests].
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, import level tests
and test imports-002 are found
as the values of otest:importedPremiseDocument.
The conformance levels associated with both files and tests
are given with the otest:level property.
The value for each document is one of
otest:Full, otest:DL,
otest:Lite or otest:Other.
Each test is explicitly associated with one or two levels.
If it is associated with otest:Lite then it
is implicitly suitable for otest:DL.
The datatypes used in the test are given with the
otest:usedDatatype property or with one of its subproperties:
otest:supportedDatatype or otest:notSupportedDatatype.
These
indicate that
the test is only valid when the datatype is supported or not supported respectively
by the
datatype map being used.
The rtest:status of the test
reflects the process of
appendix A.
It
is given as one of the following levels:
- APPROVED
-
This indicates that the test has been approved by the Web Ontology Working Group,
and that implementors are expected to implement such functionality.
- EXTRACREDIT
-
This indicates that the test has been approved by the Web Ontology Working Group,
but that implementors are
not expected to implement such functionality.
- PROPOSED
- This indicates that the test is awaiting approval.
- OBSOLETED
- The test, which was proposed or approved,
has ceased to be appropriate.
- REJECTED
- The Web Ontology Working Group rejected the test (not used).
| Full
| Positive Entailment Test: | 006 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<Class/Manifest006#test>
|
This test shows a correct application of OWL Full comprehension rules.
It also shows that use of rdfs:Class instead of owl:Class
may make a file fall outside OWL DL. |
| Lite | Premises:
<Class/premises006>
|
| Full | Conclusions:
<Class/conclusions006>
|
| Full
(EC)
| Consistent document. | 004 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<disjointWith/Manifest004#test>
|
| This example has owl:disjointWith edges in the graph which cannot be generated
by the mapping rules for DisjointClasses. Consider the lack of owl:disjointWith edge
between nodes C and D. |
| Full | Consistent:
<disjointWith/consistent004>
|
| DL Full
| Consistent document. | 007 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<disjointWith/Manifest007#test>
|
| If the owl:disjointWith edges in the graph form
undirected complete subgraphs which share URIref nodes
but do not share blank node
then this may be within OWL DL. |
| DL | Consistent:
<disjointWith/consistent007>
|
| DL Full
| Consistent document. | 009 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<disjointWith/Manifest009#test>
|
| If the owl:disjointWith edges in the graph form
undirected complete subgraphs which share URIref nodes
but do not share blank node
then this may be within OWL DL. |
| DL | Consistent:
<disjointWith/consistent009>
|
| Lite
| Import Level Test: | 008 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<imports/Manifest008#test>
|
| It is often possible to import an ordinary RDFS document
unchanged into an OWL Lite document. Aditional type
declarations may be needed in the importing document. |
| Full | Imported document:
<imports/imports008>
|
| Lite | Main document:
<imports/main008>
|
| Full
(EC)
| Consistent 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. |
| Full | Consistent:
<oneOf/consistent001>
|
| Lite
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I3.2/Manifest001#test>
|
| The names used in a DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint are not defined the OWL namespace. |
| Full | Incorrect:
<I3.2/bad001>
|
| Lite
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 002 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I3.2/Manifest002#test>
|
| The names used in a DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint are not defined the OWL namespace. |
| Full | Incorrect:
<I3.2/bad002>
|
| Lite
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 003 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I3.2/Manifest003#test>
|
| The names used in a DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint are not defined the OWL namespace. |
| Full | Incorrect:
<I3.2/bad003>
|
| Lite
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I3.4/Manifest001#test>
|
The name UnambiguousProperty is not defined in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. |
| Full | Incorrect:
<I3.4/bad001>
|
| Lite
| Illegal use of OWL namespace. | 001 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I4.1/Manifest001#test>
|
The name UniqueProperty is not defined in the OWL namespace.
daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty. |
| Full | Incorrect:
<I4.1/bad001>
|
| Full
(EC)
| Consistent document. | 010 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.1/Manifest010#test>
|
| There are 128 different bytes that are also unsigned integers; and hence also 127. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
xsd:byte,
xsd:unsignedInt,
|
| Full | Consistent:
<I5.1/consistent010>
|
| Lite Full
| Consistent document. | 010 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.2/Manifest010#test>
|
| The informal semantics for RDF container vocabulary,
indicated by the comment, are not respected by
the formal machinery of OWL. |
| Lite | Consistent:
<I5.2/consistent010>
|
| Lite Full
| Consistent document. | 011 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.2/Manifest011#test>
|
| The informal semantics indicated by comments concerning user defined classes
are not respected by the formal machinery of OWL. |
| Lite | Consistent:
<I5.2/consistent011>
|
| DL Full
| Positive Entailment Test: | 009 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.26/Manifest009#test>
|
The abstract syntax form of the conclusions is:
EquivalentClasses( restriction( first:p, minCardinality(1) ) )
ObjectProperty( first:p )
This is trivially true given that first:p is an
individualvaluedPropertyID. |
| Lite | Premises:
<I5.26/premises009>
|
| DL | Conclusions:
<I5.26/conclusions009>
|
| DL Full
| Positive Entailment Test: | 010 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.26/Manifest010#test>
|
The abstract syntax form of the conclusions is:
EquivalentClasses( restriction( first:p, minCardinality(1) ) )
ObjectProperty( first:p )
This is trivially true given that first:p is an
individualvaluedPropertyID. |
| Lite | Premises:
<I5.26/premises010>
|
| DL | Conclusions:
<I5.26/conclusions010>
|
| DL Full
| Consistent document. | 002 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest002#test>
|
There are 256 different values for xsd:byte. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
xsd:byte,
|
| DL | Consistent:
<I5.8/consistent002>
|
| DL Full
(EC)
| Inconsistent document. | 003 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest003#test>
|
There are only 128 different values of xsd:byte
that are also xsd:unsignedInt. |
| Required datatype support: |
xsd:byte,
xsd:unsignedInt,
|
| DL | Inconsistent:
<I5.8/inconsistent003>
|
| Lite Full
(EC)
| Positive 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 |
| Required datatype support: |
xsd:short,
xsd:unsignedInt,
xsd:unsignedShort,
|
| Lite | Premises:
<I5.8/premises008>
|
| Lite | Conclusions:
<I5.8/conclusions008>
|
| Lite Full
(EC)
| Positive 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. |
| Required datatype support: |
xsd:nonPositiveInteger,
xsd:short,
xsd:nonNegativeInteger,
|
| Lite | Premises:
<I5.8/premises009>
|
| Lite | Conclusions:
<I5.8/conclusions009>
|
| Lite Full
| Consistent document. | 013 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest013#test>
|
| This test illustrates the use of a user defined datatype.
The informal description has no formal semantics. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
http://example.org/user/data#type,
|
| Lite | Consistent:
<I5.8/consistent013>
|
| Full
(EC)
| Consistent document. | 014 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest014#test>
|
| This test illustrates the use of an undeclared user defined datatype. The document is hence in Full. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
http://example.org/user/data#type,
|
| Full | Consistent:
<I5.8/consistent014>
|
| Lite Full
| Consistent document. | 015 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest015#test>
|
| This test illustrates the use of a user defined datatype.
The informal description has no formal semantics. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
http://example.org/user/data#type,
|
| Lite | Consistent:
<I5.8/consistent015>
|
| Full
(EC)
| Consistent document. | 016 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<I5.8/Manifest016#test>
|
| This test illustrates the use of an undeclared user defined datatype. The document is hence in Full. |
| Datatypes that may or may not be supported: |
http://example.org/user/data#type,
|
| Full | Consistent:
<I5.8/consistent016>
|
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,
or developed by the Working Group.
The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:
oiledhttp://oiled.man.example.net/test#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
this as as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix oiled: <http://oiled.man.example.net/test#> .
|
These are general satisfiability tests that are intended to
test the interaction of role hierarchies, disjoint concepts and other
things within an OWL reasoner.
| DL Full
| Inconsistent document. | 035 |
|---|
Description:
(informative)
<description-logic/Manifest035#test>
|
| A test for the interaction of one-of and inverse using the idea of a spy point.
Everything is related to the spy via the property p and we know that the spy
has at most two invP successors, thus limiting the cardinality of the domain
to being at most 2. |
| DL | Inconsistent:
<description-logic/inconsistent035>
|
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.
These tests are OWL Lite versions of the tests from the previous sections.
The OWL DL constructions owl:unionOf, owl:complementOf,
owl:disjointWith have been systematically replaced with OWL Lite
equivalents.
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.
These tests illustrate the use of rdf:XMLLiteral.
These tests concern the semantics of annotations.
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.
Tests that show the relationship between OWL and simple arithmetic.
This appendix describes the process that was used during the development of this test suite.
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,
with status 'APPROVED' or 'EXTRACREDIT'.
The Working Group may take account of favorable 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.
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 Syntax] are not used:
-
Property attributes.
-
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.
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 Tests].
The following additional conventions are used:
-
Qnames
stand in for URI references.
- Relative URLs are permitted and are with respect to:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/.
- The triple quotes convention from Python
is sometimes used.
- No escaping of non-ASCII characters is required.
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/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.
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,
Dan Connolly,
the Guide editors,
Jonathan Borden,
Charles White,
Martin Dürst, Masayasu Ishikawa,
Jim Hendler,
Herman ter Horst,
Dave Reynolds,
and the editors.
Ian Horrocks contributed to the conformance section of this document.
Sandro Hawke created the
tests results page,
that
has been a great help during the Candidate Recommendation phase.
We thank those who gave test reports and other feedback
during the Candidate Recommendation:
Ken Baclawski,
Sean Bechhofer,
Ian Dickinson,
Michael Grove,
Sandro Hawke,
Ian Horrocks,
Minsu Jang,
Gary Ng,
Mehrdad Omidvari,
Bijan Parsia,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
Dave Reynolds,
Rob Shearer,
Evren Sirin,
Charles White
and
Youyong Zou.
We also thank the many others who helped develop the systems which
produced these reports.
This document is the result of extensive discussions within the
Web Ontology Working Group
as a whole. The partipants in this Working Group included:
Yasser alSafadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean
Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Stephen Buswell, Jeremy Carroll, Dan
Connolly, Peter Crowther, Jonathan Dale, Jos De Roo, David De
Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jérôme Euzenat, Tim
Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Sandro Hawke, Patrick Hayes, Jeff Heflin,
Ziv Hellman, James Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian
Horrocks, Jane Hunter, Rüdiger Klein, Natasha Kravtsova, Ora
Lassila, Deborah McGuinness, Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Mehrdad
Omidvari, Martin Pike, Marwan Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Noboru
Shimizu, Michael K. Smith, John Stanton, Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman
ter Horst, David Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Bernard Vatant,
Raphael Volz, Evan Wallace, Christopher Welty, Charles White,
Frederik Brysse, Francesco Iannuzzelli, Massimo Marchiori, Michael
Sintek and John Yanosy.
This section gives the changes
between this document and the
OWL Test Cases Proposed Recommendation.
The term datatype map is used instead of
the term
datatype theory, for consistency with the OWL and RDF Semantics.
This occurred a number of times, including in the descriptions of tests
miscellaneous-204,
miscellaneous-205
and
I5.8-012.
The last of these consequentially required other minor
rephrasing.
Updated references to RDF and OWL documents.
Added a paragraph near end of
section 4.2.2, clarifying that a datatype map of
an OWL Full consistency checker, (being a datatype map from RDF Semantics)
"MUST" contain an entry for rdf:XMLLiteral.
This makes explicit a requirement that was already implicit in the PR
document. Also clarified that the datatype map in the definition
of an OWL Full consistent document
is as defined in RDF Semantics, by changing the link.
Consequentially, made explicit reference to RDF Semantics (this reference
was implicit in the OWL Test Proposed Recommendation).
Corrected an error in the metadata of test miscellaneous-205
which is not
applicable for OWL Full, since rdf:XMLLiteral is a required datatype for OWL
Full. This change is visible as the deletion of the word "Full" from the
header of the test.
This error in the OWL Test
Candidate
and
Proposed
Recommendation appears to
have been relatively benign:
-
Test miscellaneous-205 was passed by FOWL, Pellet, OWLP, Hoolet and failed
by Consvisor.
- The related test miscellaneous-204 was passed by Pellet,
Consvisor and Euler.
- OWLP, Pellet and Hoolet being explicitly OWL DL
reasoners continue to pass test miscellaneous-205 appropriately.
- Consvisor
being an OWL Full system which supports rdf:XMLLiteral already conforms with
this implicit constraint of the OWL PR.
- [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
-
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-semantics/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ .
- [RDF Concepts]
-
RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax,
Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/staging/rdf-concepts/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ .
- [RDF Syntax]
-
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised).
Dave Beckett, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/staging/rdf-syntax-grammar/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ .
- [RDF Semantics]
-
RDF Semantics.
Patrick Hayes, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/staging/rdf-mt/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ .
- [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 Schema for OWL]
-
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.
Mike Dean, ed.
World Wide Web Consortium.
- [XML Schema Datatypes]
-
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes..
Paul V. Biron and Ashok Malhotra, eds.
W3C Recommendation 02 May 2000.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/.
- [RDF Tests]
-
RDF Test Cases,
Jan Grant and Dave Beckett, Editors, W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/staging/rdf-testcases/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ .
- [OWL Guide]
-
OWL Web Ontology Language
Guide.
Michael K. Smith, Chris Welty, Deborah L. McGuinness, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-guide/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ .
- [OWL Overview]
-
OWL Web Ontology Language
Overview .
Deborah L. McGuinness and
Frank van Harmelen, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 31 December 2099,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-features/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ .
- [DAML+OIL]
-
DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description.
Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, Ian Horrocks,
Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein.
W3C Note 18 December 2001.
Latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference.
- [Dublin Core]
-
http://dublincore.org/documents/
- [N3]
-
Primer: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly
- [OWL Issues]
-
Web Ontology Issue Status.
Michael K. Smith, ed.
26 Feb 2003.
- [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/.
- [Practical Reasoning]
-
Practical reasoning for expressive description logics,
I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies, 1999,
in
Proc. of LPAR'99, vol. 1705 of LNAI.
- [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
Found at
ftp://dimacs.rutgers.edu/pub/challenge/satisfiability/doc/satformat.tex
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.