- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:00:39 +0100
- To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Would you like me to change the test by deleting this part of the conclusion? We could add a separate test with this part as a nonconclusion. Any idea what the minimal premises are? Is it worth comparing the test with the original DL 98 test (or is that oo much of a pain)? Presumably finding this part as a nonconclusion is done by finding a tableau, so in principal we have a witness as to why the test is wrong. I doubt you could make it small enough to be examined by hand ... Jeremy Sean Bechhofer wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Sean Bechhofer wrote: > > >> >>Has anyone had any success with this test? >> >>http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/Manifest208 >> >>Judging by the test results, nobody has passed this one (and I'm getting >>odd results from my implementation). I am beginning to wonder whether >>there was an error in the translation from the original test, but if >>someone has managed to show the entailments, I'll be happy..... >> > > I am now convinced there is a problem with this one. Both RACER and > Vampire claim that that the following entailment in the conclusion does > *not* hold: > > [[ > <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#V16448"> > <rdf:type> > <owl:Class rdf:about="http://oiled.man.example.net/test#C122" /> > </rdf:type> > </owl:Thing> > ]] > > Sean > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 05:10:32 UTC