- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:19:49 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > Ian Horrocks writes: > > I don't believe that it is either desirable or sensible for the > > results to distinguish good/bad incompleteness. Bad incompleteness is > > unsoundness and can simply be reported as "fail". > > When I'm working on Surnia (based on otter+axioms), I'm trying to turn > the Incompletes for Positive Entailment Tests and Inconsistency tests > into Passes (while being very careful to avoid getting any Fails). I > have no expectation of making any progress on the Negative Entailment > Tests or Consistent tests, however. Is there no point to > distinguishing between my expectations here? > > I've split the test results page into different sections for the > different kinds of tests; maybe I'll just produce no column for any > system which reports no-data on the tests in some section. Then by > producing no-data for the the tests which a systems has no hope of > passing, it wont even be considered in the running. Does that make > sense? I'd also like to see some indication on this page as to whether the test is lite/owl/dl, as then I think that gives us a better idea of how well we're covering the sub-species. Sean -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 06:22:19 UTC