- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:58:18 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On September 25, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > > > One type of test that we are missing is small tests that, while > > potentially easy may prove difficult for some naive implementations. > > Attached is an example of such a test. The "TEST" class, and hence the > > ontology, is inconsistent. I would like to add several of these kinds > > of test to the test suite. > > > > I would be interested to hear how the various implementations fare on > > this test (FaCT can pass it in about 10ms, not including parsing). > > > > The test is currently in DL but could easily be converted into Lite. > > > > I will add this, and also see if my autoconvert DL=>Lite code still works. Thanks. > You suggested switching from DatatypeProperties to ObjectProperties or > vice-versa didn't you? Yes. The use of DatatypeProperties doesn't make tests qualitatively any more difficult, but just means that you have to implement more (i.e., minimal support for datatypes) in order to try them. > > If you've more tests to donate, let's put them in. Working... Ian > > (It won't be til tomorrow at the earliest though). > > Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 11:46:31 UTC