RE: implementation report for DL syntax checker

Peter:
> I wrote an OWL DL syntax checker from the CR version of S&AS
> and ran it over all the OWL tests.

Congrats!

>
> The checker was run on all files in accepted tests that were marked as
> being in OWL Lite or OWL DL or not being in OWL DL.

How did you do on the proposed tests - the ones that have not yet been
successfully checked by any system are those added for the "feature at risk"
in the CR request. It would be good to know whether I got those right or
not.

> I didn't run the
> checker on files marked as not being in OWL Lite --- these are probably
> also not in OWL DL, but this is not inferrable from the test manifest.
>

I am not sure what you mean - the intent is that each file mentioned in the
manifest is labelled as Lite DL or Full. The test itself may have a
different label, but that's typically more aimed at the syntactic checking.

> The only mistakes that the checker made were on
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent001 and
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent002 where the
> underlying XML engine that I am using (Galax) choked.  I expect to get a
> new version of Galax next week and will see if these are then correctly
> processed.
>

There was an XML error in those two files that Sean reported off-list, and
has now been fixed.

> peter
>
> PS:  Of course it may be that my syntax checker has errors and they are
> just not exercised by the approved OWL tests.
>
> PPS: It was more difficult than necessary to determine how to process the
>      manifest file.
>
>

I hope to get round to fixing that at some point, what do you think of the
plan sketched in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0218.html



donations accepted.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 05:00:47 UTC