Re: Fwd: OWL Test Cases and Species Validation

In tests like this, it may be useful to expand the test description to
include an explanation like Sean's. Otherwise, we are bound to get the
same question over and over again.


Jim Hendler wrote:
> I'm breaking my reply to Sean into two parts - this one about the
> owl:imports test, a separate one (echoing Jeremy) on the blank nodes
> in the intersection
> >In the premises document, the triple:
> >
> ><rdf:Description rdf:about=''>
> >  <owl:imports
> >rdf:resource=""/>
> ></rdf:Description>
> >
> >uses owl:imports without explicitly saying that the URI to which it
> >applies is an owl:Ontology. Thus we are in Full.
> I think we have room for improvement here - Mike, who is very up on
> our documents, naturally assumed that the reason this test was in
> full had to do with the imports, not with the missing owl:Ontology
> statement.  As a result, he was assuming that he had missed something
> in how imports works.
> I can see two easy fixes:
>   1 - add the owl:ontology statement into this example and call this a Lite test
>   2 - leave this test as it is, but add another test that is exactly
> the same except adds the owl:ontology statement (and is thus in Lite)
> I would strongly advocate the latter - this would make need for
> owl:Ontology in an imports clear, and it would make it clear that the
> imported stuff DOES need to be considered by a species checker (this
> was the confusion caused by the current test alone).
> Jeremy, Jos - what do you think of adding a new test that mirrors
> but adds the
> owl:Ontology statement per Sean's message above -- would be an easy
> additional test, and would clarify a couple of subtleties in the OWL
> design.
>   -JH

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 16:56:24 UTC