- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:51:18 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On September 7, Sandro Hawke writes: > > > 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 don't think so - this is simply a characteristic of your implementation (and is typical for FO provers). > 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? Would it be possible to fill the column with text such as "results not reported", and would you consider this reasonable? > > Another issue is whether it's fair to say Surnia passes a test when it > only does so with manual (test-specific) guidance to finding a proof. > That guidance only makes it complete sooner, so it's a > Would-Pass-if-given-enough-computing-resources. I'd like to call that > a "Pass (_note_)", (where the note is a link to an explanation); does > that seem fair? By CADE/CASC/TPTP standards, that's not a Pass, but > they might be after something different. I don't think we can call that a pass (unless you plan on providing a clone of yourself with every installation of Surnia :-)). I would suggest doing it the other way around - mark it as incomplete with a footnote stating that some manual guidance (which only serves to improve performance) allows the test to be passed. Regards, Ian > > -- sandro > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 06:51:25 UTC