- From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:01:55 -0800
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
this is a pointer to the test cases for cardinality for daml+oil that we submitted to the daml ontology library. it uses jtp to do its tests. http://www.daml.org/ontologies/114 Jeremy Carroll wrote: > This message is a draft, for input from anyone else interested in testing, > before a WOWG tagged message for tomorrows' conference. > > Jos can you fill in something about entailment tests; make any edits you > feel are necessary to the rest, and repost it with a WOWG tag in the subject > line. > > ===== > > We propose that the test focus area should produce as their first > deliverable to the working group a document that describes one or more test > formats that will be useful for: > - dicussing the properties of OWL > - helping specify the properties of OWL > - testing implementations of OWL > > Background: > =========== > > The RDF Core WG has been using test cases for most of its existence. > > The standard RDF test is to assert that a particular RDF/XML file represents > the same graph as an n-triple file. > Typically both files are small. > e.g. > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/ > test002.rdf > corresponds to > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/ > test002.nt > > Such simple examples have great merit of: > - being clear > - being binary (yes or no) > > Thus they are useful for clarifying e-mail discussion. > An example, more or less at random, see Option 2 in this e-mail: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0197.html > > [[[ > > <rdf:Description> > <foo:bar xml:lang="en">foobar</foo:bar> > </rdf:Description> > > becomes (please forgive the shorthand): > > _:a <foo:bar> _:b . > _:b <xml:lang> "en" . > _:b <rdf:value> "foobar" . > > ]]] > > A shorthand syntax is used, we can either agree or disagree with this. > (This example is not endorsed by the RDF Core WG). > > This year, a new test format has been being used. This is an entailment > test. > > The test consists of a set of files that are the antecedents of an > entailments, and a set of files that are the hypothetical consequences. > > The test is again binary: does the entailment hold or not. > > JOS - PLEASE ADD A FORMAL EXAMPLE. > > An example of how such a test is useful in WG discussion is from the fairly > heated datatyping discussion. The chair summarized many strongly felt issues > as simple entailments. This reduced the emotional heat. > > For example, in a summary message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0040.html > > of the nine or ten disputed issues three are expressed as entailments: > Issue B4, Issue B9 and Issue B10. > > So, test cases are not a panacea (six or seven of those issues were not > expressed as test cases), but they are helpful. > > Another part of RDF Core's (ongoing) work is the specification of a manifest > file, that lists all the tests, their type and their status. > > JOS - could you add a pointer to the e-mail log for the manifest file > please? > > ================= > > How's that look? > > Jeremy -- Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 0941
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:41:51 UTC