rule test cases

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 06/25/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "additional rule requirements/objectives"
    Following up on yesterday's discussion, I developed some
    possible test cases [1] for DAML/OWL Rules combining
    ontology and rules features in ways that I expect most users
    will want to do.  [2] is one of the examples we discussed
    yesterday.  I expect the most common uses will be like:
  (property chaining) (translation)
    Some tests come from my daily work:
    The test cases are written in N3 [3], because it's
    relatively easy to read and an engine (cwm) exists that can
    already handle that syntax.  cwm successfully processes many
    of the current tests, and could probably handle all of them
    if taught a little more about OWL (I think that the version
    I'm using only knows about RDF(S) and DAML+OIL).  Ascending
    test numbers in a sequence generally represent more
    complicated tests.
    I'm soliciting the following feedback:
    1) Is this a useful technique for grounding our discussions?
    2) Are there any of these tests that we wouldn't expect
    DAML/OWL Rules to handle?
    3) More tests, e.g. a realistic case that goes beyond
    Description Logic Programs.
    4) Any errors in the tests :-(
    I haven't yet gone back and looked at the tests for RDF(S),
    OWL, or cwm.  If we decide that this approach is useful, we
    should probably leverage this previous experience with
    automated testing, reporting, etc.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/25/03 EST