- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:33:29 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Agenda for TEST subgroup meeting Goal: draft resolutions for considerations by full WG telecon Chair: horrocks Scribe: ??? (there was a volunteer) 1: review of test status see http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out (maybe try the regenerate button) 2: tests with 2 or more passes Propose we APPROVE these [i.e. we recommend to the WG to approve, I avoid this detail below] I need to update the Manifest file, in order to list these. Will do that real soon now. 3: OWL Full non-entailments and consistency tests With 1 pass Class-004 DatatypeProperty-001 I5.1-010 I6.1-001 Propose we APPROVE these as EXTRACREDIT tests 4: tests from the extra-credit section (one pass each) extra-credit-002 extra-credit-003 extra-credit-004 Propose that we APPROVE these as EXTRACREDIT tests 5: Tests with 0 passes (Should be none, but ...) dl-209 misc-011 take under easier tests in next item 6: Test with 1 pass overview and discussion - easier (but new) tests Thing-003 dl-208 misc-010 misc-011 Thing-005 - datatype tests I5.8-001 I5.8-003 I5.8-004 - hard dl tests dl-666 dl-668 dl-501 ??? cerebra claims pass what does it mean? note the equally difficult dl-502 had no result from cerebra - arithmetic dl-905 dl-906 dl-907 dl-909 dl-910 (I am having a hard time understanding the test results here: Cerebra passes the ones which are consistency tests, and Euler the inconsitency tests - shouldn't Euler be claiming an incomplete result for the consistency tests and is Cerebra really claiming completeness on these tests?) - OWL Full tests with conflict (these are all quite small - personally I think we should visually inspect and approve them) I5.3-014 * someValuesFrom-001 * Restriction-006 * I5.5-007 * - OWL Full tests exhibiting some 'advanced' OWL Full features I5.8-017 cardinality-005 7: Process issues The test case document cannot really be regarded as finished when it has a proposed tests appendix. Options range from OBSOLETING everything which isn't approved ... to deciding to continue development of test suite after REC. Since the bulk of the agenda is rather dull we might want to take item 7 somewhere in the middle to keep us awake. Jeremy Jim Hendler wrote: > > Reminder- > there will be a telecon tomorrow -- it is being set up specifically to > discuss the Test Case document and to decide exactly what we wish to > move to PR -- current status, current plus some changes, a process that > continues beyond Rec to improve and add tests. > Note that this telecon is NOT a WG call, you are all welcome to attend, > but no decisions will be taken -- recommendations may be made to the WG > from this call > -JH > > > At 12:05 AM -0500 11/14/03, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> ACTION Jeremy: draw up agenda of tests to discuss next week >> >> Likely attendees, at least: Jeremy, Ian, Sean, Charles. > > > > the telecon will be at our normal time and place: > > At 11:03 PM -0500 11/11/03, Jim Hendler wrote: > >> AGENDA Teleconference Web Ontology Working Group >> Nov. 13, 2003: 1200 (East US), 0900 (West US). 1700 (London) >> Duration: 90 min >> >> IRC Chat: irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665), #webont > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:34:29 UTC