Re: TEST: last call candidate (?)

Jeff Heflin wrote:

> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> ... snip ...
>>Could I ask Jeff to review the imports tests:
> Jeremy,
> I've reviewed the imports tests. A few comments:
> 1) You use single quotes instead of double quotes around attributes in
> all of these tests

XML permits either; I hope that the tests overall use both.
No change planned.
(While we have deliberately avoided some of the variability in RDF/XML, 
there is still quite a lot that we are allowing - there is a tension 
between: (a) allowing people to read the tests without being expert in 
everything and (b) having tests that adequately exercise the stack on top 
of which an OWL system sits. I think this particularly case does a bit of 
(b) without adding any confusion)

> 2) Test 002 would probably benefit from having a support-002-A document.
> As it is, it is not clear if the non-entailment is because the support
> document doesn't exist or because it is not imported. By having such a
> document, this becomes clearer.

slightly tricky.
The file does in fact exist if you click on the URL, but you are right it 
is part of the test and should be included in the printout. My code does 
not allow for this case, I think I will have to do a one off hack of the form
   if ( testURL.equals(.....imports/ 002 )  {
// put in support-002-A doc

No - that's not really sufficient, the zip file and the manifest files 
should show support-002-A as part of the test: I need to get back to you on 

> 2a) The text of section 3.8 should be changed to allow for the above
> comment. Change "The support documents are in the imports closure of the
> premises document." to "The support documents may be in the imports
> closure of the premises document."

This is in fact a non-import non-entailment test, .... I will propose some 
text later today or tomorrow.

> 3) I don't quite understand 004. Why is it that imports004 is Full?

Answered by Sean

> 4) Test 005 should probably say "If an OWL Lite document imports an OWL
> DL document then it becomes OWL DL." in the description. This is more
> consistent with the description of Test 004.

Will change as suggested.

> 5) In Test 008, you should make it clear in the description that
> imports008 is an ordinary RDFS document and that type declarations are
> added by writing them in a document that imports the RDFS document.
> Jeff


"It is often possible to import an ordinary RDFS document
unchanged into an OWL Lite document. Aditional type
declarations may be needed in the importing document."


Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 03:44:23 UTC