- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:55:28 +0200
- To: geoff@sover.net
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Did a quick run (have to leave in 4 hours to Munich
and I still have to find some sleep as well...) for
the RDFS and OWL testcases. A P+ means that we found
a proof for a positive entailment test whereas a NP+
means that we have no proof found (we are just running
the positive entailment tests and the inconsistency
tests as we have trouble with negation if it's not
explicitly stated as "negation by declaration" as
Guido Naudts would say and similarly, I havent't
found a satisfactory way to prove consistency tests)
[[[
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt>.log:semantics
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test004>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test003>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf/Manifest.rdf#test001>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf/Manifest.rdf#test001>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test010>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test008>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#range-clash>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#conjunction-test>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-3>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#non-well-formed-literal-1>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-2>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-1>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/Manifest.rdf#test001>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/AllDifferent/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/allValuesFrom/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest004#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest005#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/cardinality/Manifest006#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/complementOf/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/differentFrom/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/differentFrom/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/disjointWith/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/disjointWith/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/distinctMembers/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest004#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest006#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest007#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest004#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest005#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentProperty/Manifest006#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest004#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/Manifest005#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I4.6/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I4.6/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.1/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest002#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest004#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/Manifest006#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.5/Manifest004#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest001#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest003#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest004#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest006#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest008#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest009#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest010#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest011#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest002#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest003#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest004#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest001#test>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest002#test>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest003#test>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/Manifest004#test>
P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/inverseOf/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/Manifest203#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Nothing/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Nothing/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest002#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest003#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest004#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/someValuesFrom/Manifest001#test> NP+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/SymmetricProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/TransitiveProperty/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/Manifest001#test> P+
<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOf/Manifest002#test> P+
]]]
which is 73/92 or 79.3% success rate
and the proofs can for instance be found in
http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/etc5-proof.n3
I'm looking forward to have an in depth look at your
owl.rql and it seems that you have already put a lot
of effort in that (at least we needed many iterations
for owl-rules, the cvs version is 1.134 and I'm still
trying...)
Well, also the rule numbering is also not an easy job ;-)
...Together "We can work it out"
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Geoff
Chappell" To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
<geoff@sover.n cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
et> Subject: RE: RDF and OWL rules
2003-03-30
11:01 PM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jos De_Roo
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 3:04 PM
> To: geoff@sover.net
> Cc: RDF Rules
> Subject: Re: RDF and OWL rules
>
>
>
> Geoff, we have done some axiomatization of
> RDFS and OWL written in N3 triples notation
> o http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules
> o http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
Thanks, that's just the sort of thing I meant. Do you have any
statistics on which of the owl test cases pass and which fail with these
rules? I'll compare them against what I've come up with.
> and it would be nice to unify such efforts.
> My choice for design/test is definitely N3
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/
Perhaps the syntax is less important than the content. It would be
interesting to come up with a common set of rules that could be
implemented in n3/euler, rdfql, and perhaps prolog (I think whatever
subset - formal or not - of owl that is defined by those rules will be
as prevalent as any other.) Undoubtedly we could each then extend the
common set based upon specific features of our languages to get as close
as possible to full owl.
I'll start by publishing my rules on our site, numbering them for
reference and cross-referencing them with your numbered rules.
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> PS any pointer to your rdfql rules for rdf and owl?
I sent an example as an attachment in my response to Harold Boley - I'll
resend if the attachment doesn't make it through.
Regards,
Geoff Chappell
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2003 17:55:41 UTC