- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:47:59 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
That a lot of work Jeremy! you deserve a good holiday!
We did a quick test assuming that we PASS a test when:
a proof is found for a PositiveEntailmentTest
or no proof is found for a NegativeEntailmentTest seen as a
PositiveEntailmentTest
or a proof is found for an InconsistencyTest
or no proof is found for a ConsistencyTest seen as an InconsistencyTest
or a proof is found for an ImportEntailmentTest
or it is an ImportLevelTest
or a proof is found for an OWLforOWLTest
or it is a NotOwlFeatureTest
The results are:
tests PASS FAIL
--------------------------------------------
Lite 92 56 36
DL 90 36 54
Full 86 68 18
--------------------------------------------
268 160 108
The detailed results are at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/temp/owl.txt
Have a nice vacation and family time!
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hpl.hp.com> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
www-webont-wg-req Subject: Tests illustrating structure sharing
uest@w3.org
2003-07-25 11:30
PM
I have added a number of tests to illustrate the constraints on the use of
bnodes corresponding to restrictions and descriptions in both the CR design
and the alternative design.
This message assumes that the CR note about the at risk feature would
indicate
that "some details of the mapping rules are at risk of change to an
alternate
design allowing structure sharing" or words to that effect. (" ... given
insufficient positive implementor feedback on the current design ...")
The alternative design advocated by some members of the WG (i.e. at least
me!)
would result in the following test changes.
The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests
of
OWL Full files, to being OWL Lite and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL
Lite files:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-002
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-003
The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests
of
OWL Full files, to being OWL DL and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL
DL
files:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-006
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-008
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-001
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-002
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-003
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-005
The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Lite or OWL DL):
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-001
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Restriction-004
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#equivalentClass-009
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-003
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-005
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-007
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#disjointWith-009
The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Full):
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-006
Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 19:48:09 UTC