- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:55:53 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> My big dilemma right now is how we should report Consistency and > Negative Entialment test results for incomplete reasoners. I'm not > comfortable with saying "Pass" when you just time out, but as Jos > pointed out, the fact that you were not able to find an inconsistency > is still useful. Maybe something like "Partial", which would be > considered better than "Incomplete" but still not as good as "Pass". > This would allow an OWL Full implementation to, in theory, do okay > (Pass/Partial) on every test. Basically, "Incomplete" would be > counted as "Partial" for certain types of reasoners on certain types > of tests. Maybe it should just be "Good Incomplete" and "Bad > Incomplete"... -- but that distinction can be made in my code, as long > as its told which kind of reasoner is involved. If we use the term 'incomplete' it is not perjorative, merely a technical description. However, given that even WG members cannot emotionally buy that, using 'partial' instead is better. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 05:02:04 UTC