Re: Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments

At 10:48 AM +0300 9/11/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Do systems need a fully automated test harness to pass a test?
>I was chatting with Dave Reynolds about what is expected to pass an
>entailement test.
>The tests are expressed as
>Graph1 entails Graph2
>In practice many APIs (including ours) do not directly support such an
>Hence Dave automatically transforms Graph2 into a query which he can then
>execute againsts Graph1, and pass the test.
>That looks fine to me.
>For some of the tests, he has a more complex query rewrite that he does
>manually, and then passes the test. I am discouraging him from reporting such
>tests as passed. (These reflect the lack of support for the comprehension
>axioms - the query rewrite essentially compensates for this).
>What are other people doing? How much manual and/or automatic rewrite do
>people do?

We actually discussed this in the past and had some plan, although I 
cannot find it in the records at the moment -- my belief is that Dan 
and others had pointed out that it is often the case that 
implementations cannot pass the tests automatically without some sort 
of intervention, but that certainly doesn't count against those 
systems being considered proof of implementation -- that is, 
something like what Dave does above is certainly valuable 
implementation experience that could be reported at CR.  I believe we 
decided that we would have some sort of mechanism to say "passes the 
test in a different way".
  We could  handle this like follows - we could ask each reasoner to 
provide   a description somewhere as to how it passes the tests - 
including a description of anything like the above.  For those that 
don't do exactly what the test document describes (i.e. run the test 
harness automatically for every test or whatever) we could consider 
something like PASS* (insteand of PASS) and a note at the bottom 
somethign like "* - see <link> for details of how <system name> 
passes these tests"
  I'm sure Ian will disagree, but I again think our tests are there to 
help implementors do better and to give people more ideas about 
different ways to build OWL tools rather than to be an exam that is 
intended to be hard to pass.  We should absolutely strive to be as 
clear as possible as to how the different systems perform and what 
their capabilities are, but we should not be setting up the 
expectation that the only way to use OWL is to be able to run our 
test harness exactly as our implementations do.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 16:21:38 UTC