- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:44:17 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On September 25, Dan Connolly writes: > > On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 09:04, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > One type of test that we are missing is small tests that, while > > potentially easy may prove difficult for some naive implementations. > > In general, the more tests the merrier... > > But it's be even more interesting if you can > relate this test to some use case or requirement; > e.g. "this test demonstrates a pattern that > comes up a lot in modelling oil refinery > options; if your implementation can't do this, > you're not going to be able to sell it to the > oil industry." This kind of pattern comes up a lot in more complex ontologies such as the Galen ontology. Failure to cope with this kind of pattern is one of the reasons that many reasoners have been unable to cope with this kind of ontology. Implementors should, however, find working with this test is much more convenient than working with a whole ontology. Ian > > > 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. > > > > Regards, Ian > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 13:49:37 UTC