Re: Dave's modified tests

I reiterate my strong opposition to the idea of modifying tests to
make them easier to pass - as I mentioned in other emails, this is
doing a disservice to implementors. I'm not convinced about the value
of adding easier versions of a given test, but could be persuadable on
that point.

Ian

On September 12, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> 
> (Sorry I forgot to talk about this at the telecon)
> 
> Dave Reynolds suggested modifications to about 10 tests to remove dependence 
> on comprehension axioms.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0037
> 
> Modified FunctionalProperty/Manifest005
> 
>   Premises005-mod:
>    Individual(foo:object, type(owl:Thing))
>    ObjectProperty(foo:prop, Functional)
>    Class(foo:compClass1 complete
>                restriction(foo:prop, maxCardinality(1)))
> 
>   Conclusions005-mod:
>    Individual(foo:object, type(owl:Thing) type(owl:compClass1))
> 
> 
> Is there sufficient consensus for
> [[
> 2. Augment the test cases by duplicates in this style.
> ]]?
> 
> 
> I understand that Dave already has the modified tests so this is low cost.
> I believe it will help clarify the separate parts of the RDFS-compatible 
> semantics.
> 
> On the list, 
> Jim was in favour, "a good idea"
> Ian opposed "misguided"
> Peter ?? (abstain?) 
> "I don't see any benefit"/"might be a good idea"
> 
> I am in favour, because of additional clarity in comprehension rules.
> 
> We have invited implementor contributions to test - we have had many good 
> contributions from network inference - I think we should tend to accept 
> rather than reject implementor suggestions at this stage.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 12:33:47 UTC