- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:25:33 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On April 29, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > Thanks Ian > > one point is that you seem to be looking at some old data .... > > the editors draft has all the syntactic fixes in, including the two you > correctly raise > > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/ Sorry - I was working from the working draft rather than the editor's draft. > > The associated Manifest with that is up to date. > I will regenerate the zip files, (approved.zip and proposed.zip in the > directory > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/ > > they are ever so slightly old (22nd Apr) > > The files on the web are always up to date > i.e. the raw data is the files retrievable from the URLs. > > Concerning that a lot of the tests are OWL Full - I am aware that coverage is > needed - the goal is for each of the features to minimally have two tests for > Lite (if applicable), two for DL and two for Full. This is really only > achieved for a handful of features. Many of the full tests are fairly early > before it was even vaguely clear what being in Lite or DL meant. > > Thanks a lot for the input on the cardinality tests, with that and with Jos's > message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0073.html > > and the other discussion of cardinality-005 on rdf-logic I suggest we: > > 1: unapprove cardinality test 005, and propose it as a non-entailment > > 2: unapprove > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.24/Manifest004 > and at some point I will recast as a Lite/DL test rather than Full > > Ian please can you verify > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest004 Done. I can report success with this test and also with http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/equivalentClass/Manifest005 > > since Jos has withdrawn his endorsement. > It would be good to have a list of more tests to approve before last call - I am working on it. As I mentioned in another email, the NI team also have lots of results from Cerebra. > Jos reports success on: > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest006 > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest008 > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest009 > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.8/Manifest011 > > Ian reports success on > > <description-logic/Manifest001#test> > <description-logic/Manifest002#test> > <description-logic/Manifest003#test> > <description-logic/Manifest004#test> > <description-logic/Manifest005#test> > > <description-logic/Manifest105#test> > <description-logic/Manifest106#test> > > (The 900 ones are true but not what was intended, if I have understood > correctly, so need fixing). 902 and 904 actually fail because the entailment should not hold. Ian > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 19:25:31 UTC