- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:49:27 -0500
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> As an example we apply this to one line in the central OWL
> document (Semantics and Abstract Syntax) i.e. the definition of unionOf in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.2
>
> The clear if somewhat mathematical definition becomes the following text:
>
> [[
> If x is in the interpretation of unionOf(c1 ... cn) then there MUST be some
> i such that x is in the interpretation of ci. If x is in the interpretation
> of ci then x MUST be in the interpretation of unionOf(c1 ... cn).
> ]]
>
> (Note the two MUSTs are separately testable).
>
> Doing that a hundred times over would have made the document unreadable,
> for the relatively minor advantage of being able to quantify the coverage
> of the specification by the test suite, and to better link each test to the
> aspect of the specification that it was trying to explore.
I don't understand the "hundred times over" aspect to this. Is it
because of "c1 ... cn", or because unionOf is only one of many parts
of OWL, or something else?
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 06:49:20 UTC