OWL Test Cases

Status

This document is the work of the author intended for discussion within the Web Ontology working group.

[[Many links and references need to be added.]]

1. Introduction

One of the deliverables in the charter of the Web Ontology Working Group is a set of test cases. This document contains those test cases, and also specifies alternative formats. This document also describes the various types of test used; and the process for creation, approval and errata in these tests.

As an appendix, this document includes further proposed tests that are awaiting consideration by the working group.

1.1. Scope

The test cases do not constitute a conformance test suite for OWL.

The test illustrate issue resolutions, and illustrate the use and meaning of the terms in the OWL namespace.

There are [[could be]] other miscellaneous tests motivated individually.

2. Deliverables

The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:

A recommendation track document, which normatively includes the tests.
Additional alternative forms of the normative tests. These are also included in informative sections of the recommendation track document.
A zip file including
- The RDF/XML files that participate in the tests
- Manifest files indicating which tests should be apply to which test files.
- The non-normative alternative forms of the test files.
This zip file is a non-normative alternative format.
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.

[[Do we want index files for the web site that clarify which parts are part of the deliverable and which are not?]]

2.1. Normative Status

Of the deliverables the only normative tests are those included in the recommendation track document. All other deliverables, are informative. Moreover, the recommendation document is informative except for the test data (specified in RDF/XML [RDF/XML]).

2.2. Conflict Resolution

When the normative tests and the other normative OWL recommendations diverge the following process should be followed.

If the OWL working drafts are at or before last call then:

The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
The working group makes appropriate modifications to remove the conflict.

If the OWL recommendation has passed last call then:

The conflict is reported to public-webont-comments@w3.org.
The working group considers the conflict
While this happens the other recommendation documents take precedence over the test case.
If there is working group consensus to retain the test case as normative and to publish an erratum against the other recommendation document(s) then this is done.
Otherwise an erratum is published which deletes the test case.

3. Test Types (Normative)

Each test consists of either one or two RDF/XML documents. Tests of one document indicate some property of that document when viewed as an OWL knowledge base. Tests of two documents indicate a relationship between the two documents when viewed as OWL knowledge bases.

3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace

These tests use one document. It is named badNNN.rdf. (The NNN is replaced by the test number). This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name that is not defined by the OWL recommendation.

Note: These tests are intended to help migration from DAML [DAML], since the local names chosen typically are defined in the DAML namespace.

3.2. Entailment Tests

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 Formal Semantics [OWL-SEMANTICS].

3.3. Non-Entailment Tests

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 Formal Semantics [OWL-SEMANTICS].

3.4. Consistency Tests

These tests use one document. It is named consistentNNN.rdf. The document is consistent as defined by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL-SEMANTICS].

3.5. Inconsistency Tests

These tests use one document. It is named inconsistentNNN.rdf. The document is inconsistent as defined by the OWL Formal Semantics [OWL-SEMANTICS].

3.6. Miscellaneous Tests (non-Normative)

During development, tests that are not of one of the above types, are classified as miscellaneous while awaiting a new test type to be defined.

4. Manifest Files

[[To be done.]]

5. Test Creation, Approval and Modification

5.1. Creation

Tests are created by members of the working group and placed in the appropriate directory in the test web site. This is done using CVS access to the W3C CVS server. @@@links

When created, tests are given a status of "PROPOSED". The author of the test modifies the Manifest file in the directory of the new test, identifying:

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 [ISSUES].
- A rationale for the test.
Optionally:
Some part of the recommendation documents which are particularly relevant.

5.2. Approval

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.

The chair action three members of the working group to review the tests a week before putting the test to the group.

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 refect 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.

5.3. Modification

Until the test case document reaches last call, the editor(s) of that document may sanction editorial changes to approved 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.
Small substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions.
Larger substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions when actioned by the working group.
Stylistic changes reflecting changes to the preferences expressed in this document.

6. Stylistic Preferences

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 gain group consensus if they follow these rules.

6.1. Use of RDF/XML

Tests should normally be expressed in RDF/XML.

There are differences of opinion as to whether only a restricted subset of RDF/XML should be used.

6.2. Use of .rdf Suffix

Test and manifest files should use the ".rdf" suffix. URIs should not.

6.3. Use of `example` Domains

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").

6.4. Copyright

The following copyright statement should be included as the first XML comment in every test file:

<!--
  Copyright World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
  Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en
  Automatique, Keio University).
 
  All Rights Reserved.
 
  Please see the full Copyright clause at
  <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html>

  $Id: This line is filled in automatically by CVS. $
-->

6.5. Description

The description should:

Link to relevant parts of of the OWL recommendations.
Clearly distinguish syntactic and semantic concerns.

The description should be included as the second XML comment in each test file, and be included in the Manifest file.

6.6. Directory Structure

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 [ISSUES].

6.7. Test Numbering

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.

7. The OWL Tests (Normative)

[[[The current layout of the tables is not satisfactory.]]

7.1. By Function

7.1.1. `owl:FunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:(informative)
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises001" > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject"> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object1" /> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object2" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions001" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#object1"> <owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="premises001#object2" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Positive Entailment Test:	test002
Description:(informative)
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises002#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises002" > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject"> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object1" eg:prop2="value" /> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object2" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/test002" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#object2" eg:prop2="value"/> </rdf:RDF>

7.1.2. `owl:InverseFunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:(informative)
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing from two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises001#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises001" > <owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject1"> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object" /> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject2"> <this:prop rdf:resource="#object" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions001" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#subject1"> <owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="premises001#subject2" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Positive Entailment Test:	test002
Description:(informative)
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing from two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises002#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises002" > <owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"/> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject1" eg:prop2="value" > <this:prop rdf:resource="#object" /> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subject2" > <this:prop rdf:resource="#object" /> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions002" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises002#subject2" eg:prop2="value"/> </rdf:RDF>

7.1.3. `owl:inverseOf`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:(informative)
If the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is an instance of the named property.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://example/myVocab#" xmlns:ex="http://example/vocab#" xmlns:log="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#" xmlns:my="http://example/myVocab#" xmlns:ont="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:your="http://example/yourVocab#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/myVocab#hasBrother"> <ont:inverseOf rdf:resource="http://example/yourVocab#isBrotherOf"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/vocab#joe"> <hasBrother rdf:resource="http://example/vocab#bob"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://example/vocab#" xmlns:ex="http://example/vocab#" xmlns:log="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:your="http://example/yourVocab#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/vocab#bob"> <your:isBrotherOf rdf:resource="http://example/vocab#joe"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

7.2. By Issue

7.2.1. I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test001
Description:(informative)
A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:eg="http://example.org/" xmlns:owl="&owl;" > <owl:Restriction owl:cardinalityQ="1"> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/> <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/> </owl:Restriction> </rdf:RDF>

Illegal use of OWL namespace.

test001

Description:(informative)

A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.

<?xml version="1.0"?>



<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ 
   <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]> 

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
         xmlns:owl="&owl;"
    >

   <owl:Restriction owl:cardinalityQ="1">
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
      <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
   </owl:Restriction>
  
</rdf:RDF>

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test002
Description:(informative)
A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl="&owl;" > <owl:Restriction owl:maxCardinalityQ="1"> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/> <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/> </owl:Restriction> </rdf:RDF>

Illegal use of OWL namespace.

test002

Description:(informative)

A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.

<?xml version="1.0"?>


<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ 
   <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]> 

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:owl="&owl;"
    >
   <owl:Restriction owl:maxCardinalityQ="1">
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
      <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
   </owl:Restriction>
  
</rdf:RDF>

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test003
Description:(informative)
A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:eg="http://example.org/" xmlns:owl="&owl;" > <owl:Restriction owl:minCardinalityQ="1"> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/> <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/> </owl:Restriction> </rdf:RDF>

Illegal use of OWL namespace.

test003

Description:(informative)

A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.

<?xml version="1.0"?>



<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ 
   <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
]> 


<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
         xmlns:owl="&owl;"
    >

   <owl:Restriction owl:minCardinalityQ="1">
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#exampleProp"/>
      <owl:hasClassQ rdf:resource="#exampleClass"/>
   </owl:Restriction>
  
</rdf:RDF>

8. The Tests as Triples (Informative)

This section repeats the tests of the previous section.

This time the test data is shown in simple triples, using N-triple syntax [RDF-TESTS] with qnames. qnames are used in place of URIs in the syntax with no delimiters.

The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:

rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#d>
first: The URL of the first file concatenated with #
second: The URL of the second file concatenated with #

Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.

8.1. By Function

8.1.1. `owl:FunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

Positive Entailment Test:	test002
Description:
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

8.1.2. `owl:InverseFunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing from two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

Positive Entailment Test:	test002
Description:
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, and a resource has prop arcs pointing from two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

8.1.3. `owl:inverseOf`

Positive Entailment Test:	test001
Description:
If the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is an instance of the named property.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

8.2. By Issue

8.2.1. I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test001
Description:
A DAML+OIL qualified cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
[[TBD]]

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test002
Description:
A DAML+OIL qualified max cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
[[TBD]]

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	test003
Description:
A DAML+OIL qualified min cardinality constraint is not legal OWL.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
[[TBD]]

9. Proposed Tests (Informative)

[[[The current layout of the tables is not satisfactory.]]

9.1. By Function

9.1.1. `owl:FunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test005
Description:
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty then an OWL object has at most one value for prop.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" /> <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object" /> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/" <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object"> <rdf:type> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty> <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" /> </owl:onProperty> <owl:maxCardinality>1</owl:maxCardinality> </owl:Restriction> </rdf:type> </owl:Thing> </rdf:RDF>

Negative Entailment Test:	test003
Description:
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, then its inverse, while being constrained to be consistent with being an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty should not be deduced as being one.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises003" > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"> <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#inv"/> </owl:FunctionalProperty> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/conclusions003" > <owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises003#inv"/> </rdf:RDF>

Negative Entailment Test:	test004
Description:
If the range of prop is a singleton set then while it is necessarily functional, (i.e. every member of its domain has a single value) it is not necessarily an owl:FunctionalProperty.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises004#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises004" > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="prop"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Singleton"/> </owl:ObjectProperty> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Singleton"> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description/> </owl:oneOf> </rdfs:Class> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/nonconclusions004" > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises004#prop"/> </rdf:RDF>

9.1.2. `owl:InverseFunctionalProperty`

Negative Entailment Test:	test003
Description:
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, then its inverse, while being constrained to be consistent with being an owl:FunctionalProperty should not be deduced as being one.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises003" > <owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:ID="prop"> <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#inv"/> </owl:InverseFunctionalProperty> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/conclusions003" > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises003#inv"/> </rdf:RDF>

Negative Entailment Test:	test004
Description:
If the domain of prop is a singleton set then while it is necessarily inverse functional, (i.e. every member of its range is the value of a single item) it is not necessarily an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
Premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:this="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises004#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/premises004" > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="prop"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Singleton"/> </owl:ObjectProperty> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Singleton"> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description/> </owl:oneOf> </rdfs:Class> </rdf:RDF>
Conclusions:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/InverseFunctionalProperty/nonconclusions004" > <owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:about="premises004#prop"/> </rdf:RDF>

9.2. By Issue

9.2.1. I3.4-UnambiguousProperty

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	bad001
Description:
This is not legal OWL. The name UnambiguousProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" > <owl:UnambiguousProperty rdf:ID="Name"/> </rdf:RDF>

9.2.2. I4.1-UniqueProp-BadName

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	bad001
Description:
This is not legal OWL. The name UniqueProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty.
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" > <owl:UniqueProperty rdf:ID="Name"/> </rdf:RDF>

10. Proposed Tests as Triples (Informative)

This section repeats the tests of the previous section.

The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:

rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#d>
first: The URL of the first file concatenated with #
second: The URL of the second file concatenated with #

10.1. By Function

10.1.1. `owl:FunctionalProperty`

Positive Entailment Test:	test005
Description:
If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty then an OWL object has at most one value for prop.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

Negative Entailment Test:	test003
Description:
If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, then its inverse, while being constrained to be consistent with being an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty should not be deduced as being one.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

Negative Entailment Test:	test004
Description:
If the range of prop is a singleton set then while it is necessarily functional, (i.e. every member of its domain has a single value) it is not necessarily an owl:FunctionalProperty.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

10.1.2. `owl:InverseFunctionalProperty`

Negative Entailment Test:	test003
Description:
If prop is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, then its inverse, while being constrained to be consistent with being an owl:FunctionalProperty should not be deduced as being one.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

Negative Entailment Test:	test004
Description:
If the domain of prop is a singleton set then while it is necessarily inverse functional, (i.e. every member of its range is the value of a single item) it is not necessarily an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
Premises:
[[TBD]]
Conclusions:
[[TBD]]

10.2. By Issue

10.2.1. I3.4-UnambiguousProperty

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	bad001
Description:
This is not legal OWL. The name UnambiguousProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UnambiguousProperty corresponds to owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
[[TBD]]

10.2.2. I4.1-UniqueProp-BadName

Illegal use of OWL namespace.	bad001
Description:
This is not legal OWL. The name UniqueProperty is not in the OWL namespace. daml:UniqueProperty corresponds to owl:FunctionalProperty.
Namespaces:
[[TBD]]
[[TBD]]