Re: test manifest file

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <>
Subject: RE: test manifest file
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:03:49 +0200


> > 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.

An OWL DL or OWL Lite syntax checker MUST produce an error, not a
warning, for most if not all of these.

> This perhaps should be added explicitly to:
> e.g.
> [[
> 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.


> Jeremy


Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 13:23:10 UTC