RE: test manifest file

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider []
> Sent: 11 August 2003 13:22
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: test manifest file
> I am still uncertain as to just what the information in the test manifest
> file means, so I would appreciate a short description of the various
> classes, properties, and values.  I was just trying to find what the
> various values for approved status were, and could not find them.

It is a bit scattered - in theory there should be enough information in

This is augmented with


I have not put as much effort into having this correct as perhaps I should.

So on the status one ... from

I read:
The test:status element, if present, indicates the status of the test
according to RDF Core WG process. Only test descriptions containing the
following should be considered to be approved by WG.

and in
- <rdf:Property
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Status</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Indicates the status of the test within a
process, such as the RDF Core WG process.</rdfs:comment>
rdf:resource="" />

However, the other values of PROPOSED and OBSOLETE are not discussed
anywhere as far as I can tell.

> > Every test of one file has two associated levels (often the same).
> > One of these is the syntactic level of the file, the other is
> the 'level'
> > (typically semantic) of the test. Really for the
> NotOWLFeatureTest both of
> > these are redundant, and perhaps silence would be the best path.
> No.  I don't see anything in these files that make them not be in
> OWL Full,
> so silence would be misleading.

Yes the files should have level OWL Full, as they currently do.

> > Something that uses owl:foobar is normally syntactically not in
> OWL Lite or
> > OWL DL (although I suppose we could have a test that was e.g.
> >
> > owl:foobar rdf:type owl:Class .
> >
> > )
> >
> > Thus for all the tests we currently have the syntactic level of
> the file is
> > given as OWL Full. I take Peter to not have difficulties with this.
> Well, as I don't really know what level is supposed to mean I don't really
> know, all I can do is make guesses.

On the levels the current editors draft says:
The metadata also indicates the language levels appropriate for each test
and each document in each test. For each RDF/XML document, one language
level is indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full, as given by the
syntactic rules in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. For semantic tests,
one or two language levels are indicated. If the language level OWL Full is
indicated for a semantic test, then the test holds according to the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics in [OWL Semantics and Abstract
Syntax]. If the language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a
semantic test, then the test holds according to the Direct Model-Theoretic
Semantics in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. If the language level OWL
Lite is indicated for a semantic test, then the test only uses features
within the OWL Lite sublanguage.
The conformance levels associated with both files and tests are given with
the otest:level property. The value for each document is one of otest:Full,
otest:DL, otest:Lite or otest:Other. Each test is explicitly associated with
one or two levels. If it is associated with otest:Lite then it is implicitly
suitable for otest:DL.

In combination these two paragraphs are silent about the level of a test
which is not a semantic test.

> > The level of the test is then a bit moot.
> > I put "Lite" on the grounds that I would expect an OWL Lite consistency
> > checker to recognise that this was not an OWL feature and to produce a
> > warning message.
> Well, again this depends on what level means.  My view is that here it
> should mean that the test is suitable for a tool that checks syntactic
> correctness for that level.  If this is the case then Lite is not wrong,
> but then an OWL DL syntactic checker has no business looking at the test
> (and mine doesn't) as something that is not in Lite might be in DL.
> > The change that I would be happiest with is simply removing the
> level of the
> > test.
> This would be wrong unless there was explicit wording that the
> NotOWLFeature tests were meant to be tests of conformance to OWL DL
> syntax.  However, I would still vote to put a test level of DL in
> for these
> tests.

NotOWLFeature is intended to be pretty clear ...
3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace
These tests use one document. It is named badNNN.rdf. This document includes
a use of the OWL namespace with a local name that is not defined by the OWL
recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD give a warning.

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

it is *not* that the local name is not defined within OWL Lite, or OWL DL,
but by OWL at all. Whatever level we decide to assign the tests an OWL
Syntax Checker should pass them all, by failing to recognise the local name,
and producing a warning.

This perhaps should be added explicitly to:

An OWL syntax checker SHOULD give a warning for the files
in the tests for incorrect use of the OWL namespace.

I guess the document is frozen at the moment.


Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 11:25:38 UTC