- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> Subject: Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:48:10 +0300 > > Summary: > 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 > operation. > > Hence Dave automatically transforms Graph2 into a query which he can then > execute againsts Graph1, and pass the test. > > That looks fine to me. Agreed. > 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). Hmm. I'm not in favour of reporting a pass if there is a manual rewriting process involved. I'm not opposed to having a manual process to get a tool to run, but I don't view this as ideal. > === > > What are other people doing? How much manual and/or automatic rewrite do > people do? Running OWLP on the OWL tests is currently a matter of running the test harness, as in ./owlTest http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/Manifest.rdf I view this as the ideal situation not only from a perspective of being the right way to do things :-) but also from a perspective of easily rerunning the tests when something changes. I expect to continue to have a completely automatic test harness, even when (if?) I connect to DLP. > Jeremy peter
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 04:25:18 UTC