- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:41:16 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
DanC:
[...]
> > 2 -
> >
> > There are a very small number of tests that have not yet been passed -
> > however, two of them are:
> >
> > [Results] miscellaneous-001 levels:DL, Full [APPROVED: Med L XXL]
> > Wine example taken from the guide.
> >
> > [Results] miscellaneous-002 levels:DL, Full [APPROVED: Med L XXL] Food
> > example taken from the guide.
> >
> > both of which are DL tests taken from examples from the Guide. In
> > the worst case we could always make the tests extra credit or simply
> > change the Guide a bit -- but as Chair it concerns me that a document
> > created by our own WG to be an example of a typical use of OWL is
> > generating a test that none of our reasoners seem to be able to pass.
>
> I noticed that a few times, and I'm very curious, if not
> concerned.
Also triggered by your chump
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/09/23/2003-09-23.html#1064349895.329315
(which reminded me about what I read some years ago
http://www.cs.gc.cuny.edu/~sartemov/publications/spinoza.ps)
I'm not understanding how consistency can be proved -
for inconsistency tests I can understand that the proof is a
construction like {triples} => {{triples} inconsistentWith theory}
where {} is more or less like box-ing but for consistency ???
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 19:41:23 UTC