- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Mar 2002 13:39:26 -0600
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
In our telcon today, I took an action to provide a handful of tests, and other folks took actions to try the tests with their implementations (FaCT, Euler, a prolog thingy, TRIPLE, Jena? ...) and report back. Ian, where are those FaCT/shiq tests? I'll see if I can convert them to DAML+OIL. Meanwhile, this sameGuy test is available in two forms: in premise/conclusion form, we have: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyP.rdf v 1.2 2002/03/07 19:20:08 and http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyC.rdf v 1.2 2002/03/07 19:19:22 Please ask your software to check that sameGuyC follows from sameGuyP and let us know the results. Or... In consitency-check form, we have the whole question in one file: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameGuyQ.rdf v 1.1 2002/03/07 19:20:08 Please feed that to your engine and tell me if it finds an inconsistency. (It should.) It occurs to me that not only is the single-file consistency check less of a tutorial/example, it also exposes different forms of incompleteness. For a complete reasoner, the two tests look pretty much the same. But for an incomplete reasoner, perhaps not. My reasoner is incomplete. I had to tell it a whole bunch more about DAML+OIL to give me the relevant result about sameGuyQ than I did for sameGuyP/sameGuyC. Please let us know of any issues that arise when you try to run this test with your software. For example, in IRC, libby asked whether query systems fit in somehow. I think that's a good question. I'm interested in thoughts on how to run this test in a query system. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:39:21 UTC