- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:31:17 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sandro - indeed we shouldn't be able to pass
nonentailments and consistency tests and so
we took them out of our running and while at it
we also took out the running of importlevel and
notowlfeature tests as we think that what we
proved for those is not enough. Systems like
OWLP, Pellet, WonderWeb,... Jena? can do better.
We have updated our results
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/temp/owl-result.rdf
accordingly...
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
PS Jeremy, could it be that
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/premises011
should have
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/support011-A
instead of
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/imports/support001-A
??
Sandro Hawke
<sandro@w3.org> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
www-webont-wg-req Subject: Re: results ontology
uest@w3.org
2003-09-11 01:58
PM
Someone asked privately about Euler passing nonentailments and
consistency tests, which it shouldnt be able to do.
I'm curious about that, too.
I'm thinking of added a tres:note predicate, producing results like
Pass
Pass [1]
Pass
Pass [2]
Pass [1]
Pass
where [1] and [2] would be links to explanatory or qualifying notes, where
people can explain why they think this is passing. :-)
Also, I'm thinking of a bit of text at the top of each section
defining the term, so at the top of Consistency Tests it would say:
"Pass" means returning "Consistent"
"Fail" means returing "Inconsistent"
"Incomplete" means returning "Unknown", not returning, raising
and error, etc
... but as I write that I'm not even sure we'd agree (or, more to the
point, how OWL Test Cases reads on this). Some people might consider
dumping core as a kind of Failure.
Of course we never say (I think) what kind of software might pass or
not pass an Entailment or Non-Entailment test, or what it might
return. Ah well.
-- sandro
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 17:35:08 UTC