Re: Review of Test Document

Finally getting round to my own document :(

Sean Bechhofer wrote:

> On a general note, with the inclusion of all the test contents, the
> document is now very large (>400 pages). Is the inclusion of test
> contents absolutely necessary? I would support Jeremy's proposal of
> [1] to exclude the test contents from the document.


My proposal was to exclude the longer tests - I feel that the shorter tests 
are more useful from a browsing point of view.
I dislike the feel of the RDF Test Cases document which excludes all the 
tests since it is very unclear what its content is.

However, I am not going to have time to restructure the document before 
last call - I have added this in appendix D as an editorial to do and 
linked that appendix from the status of this document section.

> 
> Minor Typo
> ==========
> 
> Section 6
> 
> otest:NotOWLFeatureTest
> 	A test for the incorrect us of OWL namespace


Corrected to:
use of OWL namespace name


> 				 ^^
> 
> Conformance and Testing Implementations
> =======================================
> 
> Section 4.2.2 states:
> 
> 1.[[
> An OWL consistency checker SHOULD report network errors occurring
> during the computation of the imports closure.
> ]]
> 
> and
> 
> 2.[[
> Note: Complete OWL DL consistency checkers and Complete OWL Lite
> consistency checkers MAY return Unknown on an OWL DL document or OWL
> Lite document in the case where a resource limit has been exceeded.
> ]]
> 
> Section 5.2 last para says:
> 
> 3.[[
> A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL
> consistency checker should not return Unknown on the relevant
> consistency or inconsistency tests.
> ]]
> 
> I find it unclear from this what the expected behaviour of a complete
> consistency checker should be in the light of network problems. For
> example, the case where an OWL document is DL, but this can't be
> determined due to an import problem, e.g. a resource is typed as an
> owl:Class in an imported ontology, but the server serving the imported
> ontology is inaccessible.
> 
> I suggest this can be clarified by either being explicit as to the
> expected behaviour of an OWL Lite/DL complete consistency checker when
> presented with an input which cannot be determined as being Lite/DL (as
> this may only become apparent at the point when the check is being
> performed), or extending 2. to explicitly cover network problems.


I have updated the text using Ian's proposal, and then modified that in 
light of this comment to highlight network errors.

"... outputs ... or Unknown, or it should report a network error."

"if given sufficient resources ... ** and the absence of network errors **"

with network errors linked back to the syntax checker part.


> 
> Approved/Proposed Tests
> =======================
> 
> I have not checked the content of all the tests in detail, but have
> identified some possible problems with one or two of them.
> 
> o allValuesFrom/conclusions001.rdf and
>   allValuesFrom/nonconclusions002.rdf are claimed as OWL-Lite, but are
>   not, as first:c is not typed.
> 
> o The sameClassAs and samePropertyAs tests use sameClassAs and
>   samePropertyAs rather than equivalentClass and equivalentProperty.
> 
> o http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent002.rdf
>   uses owl:hasClass. Admittedly the Manifest claims that this is a Full
>   document, but I guess this is an error.
> 
> DL Tests
> --------
> 
> As the contributor of the DL tests, these are perhaps my fault(!),
> but some of the DL tests in the approved section have broken
> syntax. Several of them include things like:
> 
> <owl:Restriction>
>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test#s"/>
>  <owl:someValuesFrom>
>   <owl:Thing/>
>  </owl:someValuesFrom>
> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> This should rather be:
> 
> <owl:Restriction>
>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test#s"/>
>  <owl:someValuesFrom>
>   <owl:Class name="http://www.w3.org/2002/07#Thing"/>
>  </owl:someValuesFrom>
> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> or perhaps:
> 
> <owl:Restriction>
>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test#s"/>
>  <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07#Thing"/>
> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> In addition, If they are to be brought into line with B.4, the
> "http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test" domain should be replace with an example
> domain as "http://oiled.man.ac.uk/test" is not a retrievable web
> resource.


I have added a link in the todo section (appendix D) to these bug reports.
I will have to fix the last point before last call because of the 
publication rules.


> 
> Appendices
> ==========
> 
> Appendices A and B are neither marked as Informative or Normative. I
> assume the former.
> 


Fixed to Informative.


> A.2 Approval
> ============
> 
> [[
> Many of the tests are proposed by Carroll and verified by De Roo's
> implementation.
> ]]
> 
> Can you clarify what "De Roo's implementation" is here, and to what
> extent the tests are verified. Alternatively, remove the statement, as it
> doesn't really provide much information -- we already know that
> Jeremy and Jos have done a lot of work on this document :-)
> 


Deleted.


> [The next point is a question perhaps relating to W3C policy rather than
> the document.] What is the procedure (if any) for
> extending/amending/maintaining the test suite once the language has been
> accepted? Is the working group still in existence at that point?


The WG will continue for a bit after Recommendation - after that our 
responsibilities are delegated to the Semantic Web coordination group who 
may fail to fulfil them, or may cease to exist itself.
(Dan may choose to correct this).

Errors in the tests will be reflected in an errata document; Dan indicated 
that we are not permitted to mandate any particular policy has to how 
errata will be treated (the first WD suggests that after Rec tests should 
not be modified other than by deletion - Dan objected)

Personally I would be against new tests being added after Recommendation - 
but I suspect that an erratum could do that.


> 
> <Section B.9
> ===========
> 
> [[
> first
> 	The URL of the first file concatenated with #
> second
> 	The URL of the second file concatenated with #
> ]]
> 
> Please clarify - what are the first and second files in this context?
> 


I have listed the possible bindings.


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0063.html
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Sean
> 
> 



I have just checked in the new version to

http://wwww.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot

I still need to:
- add ref and links to XML Schema Datatypes
- list in the to-do section all my outstanding actions on adding test cases 
(numerous)

I hope to do this today.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 10:11:44 UTC