- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:29:36 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@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. I was wrong - IncompleteRun is indeed a good idea for saying "Pass" when you just time out (my confusion was that I thought we then couldn't get a FailingRun for a Consistency and Negative Entialment test, but we can). I will try to update my testresults that way. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 05:29:44 UTC