Re: Manual Rewriting and Passing Entailments

From: Jeremy Carroll <>
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.


> 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 


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


Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 04:25:18 UTC