Addiitonal syntax tests

Hi,

I am cc-ing Michael and Bijan given their Pellet reports ...
There is a note at the end about test I5.8/016 which just reiterates what has 
already been in the WG list.

Having made slower progress on my own syntax checker than some others, I am 
only now at the stage of trying to get all the bugs in it.

There were a few things I knew I had not coded up, but which did not show in 
failed tests - in particular the optional type triples on descriptions and 
restrictions.

So I have now added some tests in this area
Class-005, Class-006, Restriction--005, Restriction-006, 
(these also better exercise the comprehension rules).

True to my expectations my code fails three out of four of these tests, and 
the one it passes it passes for the wrong reason.

===

On I5.8-016, this test emerged from discussion in the WG about the syntax of 
user defined datatypes. I suggested that what the OWL CR says was a bug, 
Peter seemed to argue it was a feature. DanC asked what the implementations 
do. Since we didn't know I wrote a test; the test proposes that this should 
be in Full; the OWL CR says Lite. OWLP and Jena both say Lite (even though I 
wrote the Jena syntax checker?).

I believe that the tests I5.8-013,014,015 to be correct, and to exercise 
related parts of the problem.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 12:41:49 UTC