- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:56:19 +0200
- To: "Evren Sirin <evren" <evren@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
in message
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Aug/0115.html
we had
[[
We have been able to run description-logic/Manifest203, 206, 663, 666
as well but with a customized ruleset and also 208 and 668 except
for the conclusion
oiled:V16448 rdf:type oiled:C122.
for which I asked Sean's advice in message
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Aug/0106.html
]]
that was august 26 2003
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Evren Sirin
<evren@cs.umd.edu To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: description-logic208
www-webont-wg-req
uest@w3.org
2003-10-08 01:58
PM
> 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>
> ]]
I agree. Our reasoner Pellet also says this entailment does not hold.
Evren
>
> Sean
>
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 10:00:57 UTC