- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: TEST: What is a test (was Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:00:20 +0200 > I feel a strong sense of agreement with Peter this morning! > (honest) > > Peter: > >I feel strongly that a test is not just one or two files, but instead must > >have an attached description and rationale. In my view, all this > >information should be bundled together in single easily human-readable document, > >which is what would be approved by the working group. > > I agree with this but less strongly. > At some point we need to be able to present the test material in a more > coherent fashion than the current overly messy web site. My view is that if the attached information is not mandated for a test to be approved, then it will never be created. > My understanding of the current modus operandi is that we are making do with > a few scrappy files and a Manifest file that could be machine processed to > create what Peter expects. (One thing missing from the Manifest is > "rationale", I am not clear what would constitute a rationle for a test, why > do we choose one test rather than another). I have typically triplicated the > description putting it in the Manifest and the premises and conclusions > document for each test. This is not perfect and is error prone, but I am not > volunteering to build the machine processor this week. > RDF Core's test cases document is largely machine processed from the > Manifest files; given the amount of work that that has been I don't think I > realistically aspire to more than that; whilst Peter's wishes appear > greater. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#tc_cert > > As is, I don't think we should hold up approving test cases merely on > packaging grounds. However the packaging is currently inadequate. I'm not proposing anything complicated. I would be happy with a format that is something like DESCRIPTION: <text> RATIONALE: <text> PREMISE: ??? CONCLUSION: ??? which could easily be processed by a sed script. (This assumes, of course, that the processing is done on a reasonable OS. :-) It would also be useful to have a README (MANIFEST) file that organizes the various tests. > > Jeremy An example test file is DESCRIPTION: An entailment test showing how cardinalities of subproperties can be added up in a superproperty when the global ranges of the subproperties are disjoint. RATIONALE: This entailment has been disputed, and is being specifically included to resolve the dispute. PREMISE: :p rdfs:domain :A . :q rdfs:domain :B . :A owl:disjointWith :B . :p rdfs:subPropertyOf :r . :q rdfs:subPropertyOf :r . CONCLUSION: _:x rdf:type rdfs:Class . _:x owl:intersectionOf _:l1 . _:l1 rdf:first _:r1 . _:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 . _:l2 rdf:first _:r2 . _:l2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . _:r1 owl:onProperty :p . _:r1 owl:minCardinality 2 . _:r2 owl:onProperty :q . _:r2 owl:minCardinality 2 . _:x rdfs:subClassOf _:r3 . _:r3 owl:onProperty :r . _:r3 owl:minCardinality 4 . A better premise and conclusion, for me, would be PREMISE: ObjectProperty(r) ObjectProperty(p super=r domain=A) ObjectProperty(q super=r domain=B) DisjointClasses(A B) CONCLUSION: SubClassOf( sub=intersectionOf(restriction(p minCardinality=2) restriction(q minCardinality=2)) super=restriction(r minCardinality=4))
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 07:41:45 UTC