OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases

OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases
OWL Web Ontology Language
Test Cases
W3C Recommendation
10 February 2004
New Version
Available: OWL 2
(Document Status Update, 12 November 2009)
The OWL Working Group has produced
a W3C Recommendation for a new version of OWL which adds
features to this 2004 version, while remaining compatible.
Please see
OWL 2
Document Overview
for an introduction to OWL 2 and a guide
to the OWL 2 document set.
This version:
Latest version:
Previous version:
Editors:
Jeremy J. Carroll
, HP
jjc@hpl.hp.com
Jos De Roo
, AGFA,<
jos.deroo@agfa.com
Please refer to the
errata
for this document, which may include some normative corrections.
This normative version is a compound document.

Non-normative versions consisting of a single HTML file are available
in three sizes:
medium
large
and
extra large
The tests of this document are also available in these non-normative formats:
Zip archive of approved tests
the test Web site
See also
translations
W3C
MIT
ERCIM
Keio
), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability
trademark
document
use
and
software
licensing
rules apply.
Abstract
This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
approved by the
Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage
of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal
meaning of its constructs. Other test cases
illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group.
Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.
Status of this document
This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested
parties, and it has been endorsed by the Director as a
W3C
Recommendation
. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to
draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread
deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of
the Web.
This is one of
six
parts
of the W3C Recommendation for OWL, the Web Ontology
Language. It has been developed by the
Web Ontology Working
Group
as part of the
W3C
Semantic Web Activity
Activity Statement
Group Charter
) for
publication on 10 February 2004.
The design of OWL expressed in earlier versions of these documents
has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's
technical requirements
The Working Group has addressed
all comments received
, making changes as necessary. Changes to
this document since
the Proposed
Recommendation version
are detailed in the
change log
Comments are welcome at
public-webont-comments@w3.org
archive
and general discussion of related technology is welcome at
www-rdf-logic@w3.org
archive
).
A list of
implementations
is available.
The W3C maintains a list of
any
patent disclosures related to this work
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the
W3C technical reports index
at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Conformance and Scope
2. Deliverables (Normative)
2.1. Normative Status
2.2. Extra Credit Tests
3. Test Types (Normative)
3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace
3.2. Entailment Tests
3.3. Non-Entailment Tests
3.4. True Tests
3.5. OWL for OWL Tests
3.6. Consistency Tests
3.7. Inconsistency Tests
3.8. Import Entailment Tests
3.9. Import Level Tests
4. Conformance (Normative)
4.1. Document Conformance
4.1.1. Syntactic Conformance
4.1.2. Semantic Conformance
4.2. Document Checker Conformance
4.2.1. Syntax Checker
4.2.2. Consistency Checker
5. Testing an OWL Implementation (Informative)
5.1. OWL Syntax Checkers
5.2. OWL Consistency Checker
6. Manifest Files (Informative)
7. The OWL Tests (Normative)
7.1. By Function
7.1.1.
owl:AllDifferent
7.1.2.
owl:AnnotationProperty
7.1.3.
owl:Class
7.1.4.
owl:DatatypeProperty
7.1.5.
owl:FunctionalProperty
7.1.6.
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
7.1.7.
owl:Nothing
7.1.8.
owl:Ontology
7.1.9.
owl:Restriction
7.1.10.
owl:SymmetricProperty
7.1.11.
owl:Thing
7.1.12.
owl:TransitiveProperty
7.1.13.
owl:allValuesFrom
7.1.14.
owl:backwardCompatibleWith
7.1.15.
owl:cardinality
7.1.16.
owl:complementOf
7.1.17.
owl:differentFrom
7.1.18.
owl:disjointWith
7.1.19.
owl:distinctMembers
7.1.20.
owl:equivalentClass
7.1.21.
owl:equivalentProperty
7.1.22.
owl:imports
7.1.23.
owl:intersectionOf
7.1.24.
owl:inverseOf
7.1.25.
owl:maxCardinality
7.1.26.
owl:oneOf
7.1.27.
owl:sameAs
7.1.28.
owl:someValuesFrom
7.1.29.
owl:unionOf
7.2. By Issue
7.2.1. Qualified Restrictions
7.2.2. UnambiguousProperty
7.2.3. UniqueProp BadName
7.2.4. InverseOf
7.2.5. EquivalentTo
7.2.6. Uniform treatment of literal data values
7.2.7. Language Compliance Levels
7.2.8. drop-disjointUnionOf
7.2.9. IF-or-IFF-property-properties
7.2.10. OWL DL Sytntax
7.2.11. Semantic-Layering
7.2.12. List syntax or semantics
7.2.13. Datatypes
7.2.14. Unnamed Individual Restrictions
7.3. Additional Description Logic Tests
7.3.1. Extended Satisfiability Tests
7.3.2. Heinsohn's Tests
7.3.3. DL 98 Instance Tests
7.3.4. The 3 SAT Problem
7.3.5. Difficult OWL Lite Tests
7.3.6. Extended Cardinality Testing
7.4. Miscellaneous Tests
7.4.1. Examples from the OWL Guide
7.4.2. Detailed OWL Lite and OWL DL Syntax
7.4.3. Concerning rdf:XMLLiteral
7.4.4. Annotations
7.5. Extra Credit
7.5.1. Arithmetic in OWL
A. Test Creation, Approval and Modification (Historical, Informative)
A.1. Creation
A.2. Approval
A.3. Modification
B. Stylistic Preferences (Informative)
B.1. Use of RDF/XML
B.2. Use of
xml:base
B.3. Use of .rdf Suffix
B.4. Use of
example
Domains
B.5. Copyright
B.6. Description
B.7. Directory Structure
B.8. Test Numbering
B.9. Triple Format of Test Data
C. Index
C.1. Index of OWL Feature Tests
C.2. Index of OWL Issue Tests
C.3. Index of Miscellaneous Tests
C.4. Index of Description Logic Tests
C.5. Index of Extra Credit Tests
D. Acknowledgments (Informative)
E. Changes Since Proposed Recommendation
F. References
1. Introduction
As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
the Web Ontology Working Group provides
set of
test cases
. This document
presents those test cases.
They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification
of, the normative definition of OWL
found in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
to which this document is subsidiary.
This document is one component of the description of OWL, the Web Ontology
Language, being produced by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group.
The
Document Roadmap
section
of the
[OWL Overview]
describes each of the different parts
and how they fit together.
This document describes the various types of test used
and the format in which the tests
are presented.
Alternative formats of the test collection are provided.
These are intended to be suitable
for use by OWL developers in test harnesses,
possibly as part of a test driven development process,
such as Extreme Programming
[XP]
The format of the
Manifest
files
used as part of these alternative formats is described.
In the non-normative appendices, this document also
describes the
process for creation and approval of these tests.
1.1. Conformance and Scope
Various conformance levels are defined in
this document
in terms
of
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
However, the test cases do
not
constitute a conformance test
suite for OWL,
since they are silent
on several important issues. This document cannot be considered a
complete specification of OWL.
The tests illustrate issue resolutions, and illustrate the use and meaning
of
the terms in the OWL namespace.
There are
other miscellaneous tests:
some
arising in the literature, and in preexisting systems;
others intending to show the difficulty of
complete implementations of OWL Full.
2. Deliverables (Normative)
The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:
The
recommendation track document
, which normatively includes the tests.
Additional alternative forms of the normative tests. These are also
included in informative appendices to this document.
A zip file including
The RDF/XML files that participate in the
tests
Manifest files indicating which tests should be applied to which
test files.
The non-normative alternative forms of the test files.
This zip file is a non-normative alternative format.
Manifest
file describing all the tests.
Web site
which includes the files in the zip file.
This also is a non-normative alternative format.
Note:
Other files can be found
under the top URL of the Web site which are not part
of the deliverable.
2.1. Normative Status
Of the deliverables the only normative tests are
those
included
in this document. All other deliverables
are informative. Moreover, the recommendation document is
informative except for the conformance statements, the
test data (specified in RDF/XML
[RDF Syntax]
), and the supporting documentation.
2.2. Extra Credit Tests
The
Web Ontology Working Group
has seen adequate implementation experience of
most of the tests in this document. Some, however, are particularly difficult
to implement efficiently. These are labelled as extra credit tests. Such
tests indicate the semantics of OWL, but may use features that are not
sufficiently widely implemented to provide good interoperability.
A general case of extra credit tests is that all OWL Full
nonentailments
and
consistency
tests are extra credit tests.
This is because typical OWL Full
implementations prove entailments but cannot prove nonentailments.
Extra credit tests are labelled with "EC" within this document and with
status
EXTRACREDIT
in the manifest files.
The name indicates that there is no expectation that any implementation will
successfully run such tests and any that do gain extra credit.
3. Test Types (Normative)
Each test consists of one or more RDF/XML documents and a
Manifest
file.
Tests of one document indicate some property of that document
when viewed as an OWL knowledge base.
Tests of two or more documents indicate a relationship between the two documents
when viewed as OWL knowledge bases.
The
Manifest
file is named
Manifest
NNN
.rdf
(The
NNN
is replaced by the test number).
It contains metadata (in RDF) indicating the test type,
and describing the test.
The metadata also indicates
the language levels appropriate for each test and each document in each test.
For each RDF/XML document, one language level is indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full,
as given by the syntactic rules in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
For semantic tests, one or two language levels are indicated.
If the language level OWL Full is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
If the language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
If the language level OWL Lite is indicated for a semantic test, then the test only uses
features within the OWL Lite sublanguage.
Some of the tests require that certain
datatypes are, or are not, supported in the
datatype map
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
These are indicated with the test.
Other datatypes which are used in the test
are also indicated: the test applies whether or not these are supported in the
datatype map
The datatypes
xsd:integer
xsd:string
from
[XML Schema Datatypes]
are not indicated, even when used or required, since they
must
be supported.
3.1. Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace
These tests use one document.
It is named
bad
NNN
.rdf
This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name
that is not defined by the OWL recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD
give a warning.
Note:
These tests are intended to help migration
from DAML+OIL
[DAML+OIL]
since the local names chosen are defined in the DAML+OIL namespace.
3.2. Entailment Tests
These tests use two documents.
One is named
premises
NNN
.rdf
the other is named
conclusions
NNN
.rdf
The
conclusions
are
entailed
by the
premises
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
(see also
OWL Full entailment
).
3.3. Non-Entailment Tests
These tests use two documents.
One is named
premises
NNN
.rdf
the other is named
nonconclusions
NNN
.rdf
The
nonconclusions
are not
entailed
by the
premises
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
(see also
OWL Full entailment
).
Exceptionally,
test imports-002
includes a
third document
3.4. True Tests
These tests use one document.
It is named
conclusions
NNN
.rdf
The
conclusions
follow from the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
These tests are a special case of the
entailment tests
in which the premises are empty.
3.5. OWL for OWL Tests
These tests use one document.
It is named
conclusions
NNN
.rdf
These are a special case of
true tests
The
conclusions
follow from the
OWL Full semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
The tests are intended to illustrate how
OWL Full can be used to describe its own properties and
classes.
3.6. Consistency Tests
These tests use one document.
It is named
consistent
NNN
.rdf
The document is
consistent
as defined
by the OWL Semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
(see also
OWL Full consistency
).
3.7. Inconsistency Tests
These tests use one document.
It is named
inconsistent
NNN
.rdf
The document is not
consistent
as defined
by the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
(see also
OWL Full consistency
).
3.8. Import Entailment Tests
These tests use more than two documents.
One is named
premises
NNN
.rdf
another is named
conclusions
NNN
.rdf
, the rest have names
like
support
NNN
-A.rdf
The
support
documents are in the
imports closure
of the
premises
document.
The
conclusions
are
entailed
by the
imports closure
of the
premises
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
(see also
OWL Full entailment
).
3.9. Import Level Tests
These tests use two documents.
One is named
imports
NNN
.rdf
the other is named
main
NNN
.rdf
These
tests indicate the
interaction between
owl:imports
and the sublanguage levels of the
main
document.
4. Conformance (Normative)
4.1. Document Conformance
4.1.1. Syntactic Conformance
An
OWL Full
document
is any
RDF/XML document
[RDF Syntax]
An
OWL DL
document
is an
OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL DL ontology in RDF
graph form
An
OWL Lite
document
is an
OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL Lite ontology in RDF
graph form
4.1.2. Semantic Conformance
An
OWL Lite
or
OWL DL
document
is
OWL DL consistent
with respect to
datatype map
if
and only if there is some
abstract OWL interpretation
with respect
to
such that
satisfies
an abstract ontology
corresponding to
in which
has a
separated vocabulary
(see
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
).
An
OWL Full document
is
OWL Full consistent
with respect to a
datatype map
, if and only if there is some
OWL Full interpretation
with respect to
such that
satisfies all
the RDF graphs in some
imports closed collection
containing an RDF
graph corresponding to
4.2. Document Checker Conformance
This section uses the words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY as in
[RFC 2119]
4.2.1. Syntax Checker
An
OWL
syntax checker
takes a document as input, and returns one word being one of
Lite
DL
Full
Other
The return value MUST conform with the following:
Lite
The input document is an
OWL Lite document
DL
The input document is an
OWL DL document
but not an
OWL Lite document
Full
The input document is an
OWL Full document
but not an
OWL DL document
Other
The input document is not an
OWL Full document
In addition, an OWL Syntax Checker SHOULD report a warning if
the
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
corresponding to the document
uses any URI references
starting with the prefix
except those found in the
[RDF Schema for OWL]
An
OWL
syntax checker
SHOULD report network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
4.2.2. Consistency Checker
An
OWL consistency checker
takes a document as input, and returns one word being
Consistent
Inconsistent
, or
Unknown
An
OWL
consistency checker
SHOULD report network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
An
OWL
consistency checker
MUST provide a means to determine
the datatypes
supported by its
datatype map
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
; for example, by listing them in its
supporting documentation.
An
OWL
consistency checker
MUST provide a means to determine
the model theory
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
, it uses (either the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
or the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
);
for example, in its
supporting documentation.
An
OWL
consistency checker
MUST be
sound
it MUST
return
Consistent
only when the
input document is consistent and
Inconsistent
only when the input
document is not consistent, with respect to the
datatype map
of the checker.
If an input
document uses datatypes that are not
supported by the
datatype map
of
an
OWL
consistency checker
then it MAY report a warning.
An OWL consistency checker is
complete and terminating
if, given sufficient (but
finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory)
and the absence of
network errors
, it will always return
either
Consistent
or
Inconsistent
. It has
been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a
complete and terminating
consistency checker
(the languages are
decidable
),
and that
for OWL full it is not possible to construct a
complete and terminating
consistency
checker (the language is
undecidable
[Practical Reasoning]
).
The
datatype map
of
an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support at least
xsd:integer
xsd:string
from
[XML Schema Datatypes]
An
OWL consistency checker
SHOULD NOT return
Unknown
Unknown
, while sometimes needed, is not
a desired response.
Four different conformance classes of
OWL consistency checker
are defined.
An
OWL Lite consistency checker
is an
OWL consistency checker
that
takes an
OWL Lite document
as input, and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
An
OWL DL consistency checker
is an
OWL consistency checker
that
takes an
OWL DL document
as input and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
An
OWL Full consistency checker
is an
OWL consistency checker
that
takes an
OWL Full document
as input and uses the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
The
datatype map
of an
OWL Full consistency checker
MUST also support
rdf:XMLLiteral
from
[RDF Concepts]
see
[RDF Semantics]
complete OWL Lite consistency checker
is an
OWL Lite consistency checker
that
is
complete and terminating
Note:
An
OWL Full consistency checker
may indicate that an OWL DL document is inconsistent, while
an
OWL DL consistency checker
indicates that the same document is consistent, (for example: compare test
Thing-005
with
Thing-004
or
compare
AnnotationProperty-001
with
AnnotationProperty-002
).
Every
OWL DL consistency checker
is also an
OWL Lite consistency checker
Note:
complete OWL Lite consistency checker
MAY return
Unknown
for an
OWL Lite document
in the case where
a resource limit has been exceeded.
Note:
The usage of the word 'complete' in this section
follows the conventions of the description logic community.
In some other communities the word 'complete'
is used in a weaker sense, refering to the
detection
of inconsistency by logical inference systems.
5. Testing an OWL Implementation (Informative)
5.1. OWL Syntax Checkers
An
OWL syntax checker
when presented with any of the test files
must return the indicated result.

This includes the
extra credit tests
5.2. OWL Consistency Checker
An
OWL consistency checker
can be tested using appropriate
consistency
and
inconsistency tests
Appropriate tests are those
of an appropriate level and for which the checker has appropriate datatype support.
The level of the test indicates the semantic theory being used,
which may differ from the level of the file. For example, test
Thing-004
contains an OWL DL file which is consistent as an OWL DL consistency test, but
inconsistent as an
OWL Full consistency test
An
OWL consistency checker
has
appropriate datatype support
for a test if both:
Its
datatype map
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
supports all the datatypes that are required to be supported by the test.
If there are any datatypes that are required to be not supported by the test,
then they must not be supported by the
datatype map
of the checker (in some cases it may be sufficient
for only some of them to be not supported).
An
OWL Lite consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support
when presented with a file from
an OWL Lite
consistency test
must return
Consistent
or
Unknown
An
OWL DL consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support
when presented with a file from
an OWL DL or OWL Lite
consistency test
must return
Consistent
or
Unknown
An
OWL Full consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support
when presented with a file from
an OWL Full
consistency test
must return
Consistent
or
Unknown
The corresponding
inconsistency tests
must return
Inconsistent
or
Unknown
complete OWL Lite consistency checker
should not return
Unknown
on the OWL Lite
consistency
or
inconsistency
tests, regardless of the use of
unsupported datatypes.
The above constraints also apply to
extra credit tests
Consistency checkers that return the correct answer (i.e. not
Unknown
gain the extra credit.
6. Manifest Files (Informative)
The
Manifest
file follows the RDF schema developed
for the RDF Test Cases
[RDF Tests]
This is augmented by a few new properties and types
which are declared in the OWL Test Ontology, found
at
Specifically each test has its own
Manifest
file, and is identified from
the URI reference formed from the
Manifest
file's URL with a fragment
test
The test has one
rdf:type
explicit, and this is one of:
otest:NotOwlFeatureTest
A test for the incorrect use of the OWL namespace name.
otest:PositiveEntailmentTest
An entailment test.
otest:NegativeEntailmentTest
A non-entailment test.
otest:TrueTest
A true test.
otest:OWLforOWLTest
An OWL for OWL test.
otest:ConsistencyTest
A consistency test.
otest:InconsistencyTest
An inconsistency test.
otest:ImportEntailmentTest
An import entailment test.
otest:ImportLevelTest
An import level test.
Where
otest
is bound to
and
rtest
is bound to
The name of the original author of the test is shown using a
dc:creator
property, see
[Dublin Core]
A description of the test is given (using XHTML markup
[XHTML]
as the value of the
rtest:description
property.
An issue, if any, from the OWL Issues list
[OWL Issues]
, is
the value of a
rtest:issue
property.
An appropriate language feature, from the OWL namespace, if any, is
the value of the
otest:feature
property.
The input documents with the test data are found as the value of
the
rtest:inputDocument
property or
as the value of both the
rtest:premiseDocument
and
the
rtest:conclusionDocument
The support files for import entailment tests, import level tests
and
test imports-002
are found
as the values of
otest:importedPremiseDocument
The conformance levels associated with both files and tests
are given with the
otest:level
property.
The value for each document is one of
otest:Full
otest:DL
otest:Lite
or
otest:Other

Each test is explicitly associated with one or two levels.
If it is associated with
otest:Lite
then it
is implicitly suitable for
otest:DL
The datatypes used in the test are given with the
otest:usedDatatype
property or with one of its subproperties:
otest:supportedDatatype
or
otest:notSupportedDatatype
These
indicate that
the test is only valid when the datatype is supported or not supported respectively
by the
datatype map
being used.
The
rtest:status
of the test
reflects the process of
appendix A
It
is given as one of the following levels:
APPROVED
This indicates that the test has been approved by the Web Ontology Working Group,
and that implementors are expected to implement such functionality.
EXTRACREDIT
This indicates that the test has been approved by the Web Ontology Working Group,
but that implementors are
not expected
to implement such functionality.
PROPOSED
This indicates that the test is awaiting approval.
OBSOLETED
The test, which was proposed or approved,
has ceased to be appropriate.
REJECTED
The Web Ontology Working Group rejected the test (not used).
7. The OWL Tests (Normative)
Contents
7.1. By Function
7.1.1.
owl:AllDifferent
7.1.2.
owl:AnnotationProperty
7.1.3.
owl:Class
7.1.4.
owl:DatatypeProperty
7.1.5.
owl:FunctionalProperty
7.1.6.
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
7.1.7.
owl:Nothing
7.1.8.
owl:Ontology
7.1.9.
owl:Restriction
7.1.10.
owl:SymmetricProperty
7.1.11.
owl:Thing
7.1.12.
owl:TransitiveProperty
7.1.13.
owl:allValuesFrom
7.1.14.
owl:backwardCompatibleWith
7.1.15.
owl:cardinality
7.1.16.
owl:complementOf
7.1.17.
owl:differentFrom
7.1.18.
owl:disjointWith
7.1.19.
owl:distinctMembers
7.1.20.
owl:equivalentClass
7.1.21.
owl:equivalentProperty
7.1.22.
owl:imports
7.1.23.
owl:intersectionOf
7.1.24.
owl:inverseOf
7.1.25.
owl:maxCardinality
7.1.26.
owl:oneOf
7.1.27.
owl:sameAs
7.1.28.
owl:someValuesFrom
7.1.29.
owl:unionOf
Contents
7.2. By Issue
7.2.1. Qualified Restrictions
7.2.2. UnambiguousProperty
7.2.3. UniqueProp BadName
7.2.4. InverseOf
7.2.5. EquivalentTo
7.2.6. Uniform treatment of literal data values
7.2.7. Language Compliance Levels
7.2.8. drop-disjointUnionOf
7.2.9. IF-or-IFF-property-properties
7.2.10. OWL DL Sytntax
7.2.11. Semantic-Layering
7.2.12. List syntax or semantics
7.2.13. Datatypes
7.2.14. Unnamed Individual Restrictions
7.3. Additional Description Logic Tests
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(for instance, from
[Heinsohn et al.]
),
or from test suites contributed by
Network Inference
or developed by the Working Group.
The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:
oiled
In the N3 syntax
[N3]
used for namespace declarations,
this as as follows:
Namespaces:
@prefix oiled: .
Contents
7.3.1. Extended Satisfiability Tests
Contents
7.3.2. Heinsohn's Tests
Contents
7.3.3. DL 98 Instance Tests
Contents
7.3.4. The 3 SAT Problem
Contents
7.3.5. Difficult OWL Lite Tests
Contents
7.3.6. Extended Cardinality Testing
7.4. Miscellaneous Tests
These tests
are ones that do not fit any other category.
Some are taken from the
[OWL Guide]
others reflect various aspects of OWL, that
were not formal issues addressed by the Working Group.
Contents
7.4.1. Examples from the OWL Guide
Contents
7.4.2. Detailed OWL Lite and OWL DL Syntax
Contents
7.4.3. Concerning rdf:XMLLiteral
Contents
7.4.4. Annotations
7.5. Extra Credit
There is no expectation that any implementation will successfully run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Contents
7.5.1. Arithmetic in OWL
A. Test Creation, Approval and Modification (Historical, Informative)
This appendix describes the process that was used during the development of this test suite.
A.1. Creation
Tests are created by members of the Working Group.
An (optional)
test editor
is provided to facilitate this.
Tests are then placed
in the appropriate directory in the
test Web site
This is done using CVS access to the W3C CVS server
[W3C CVS]
When created, tests are given a status of
"PROPOSED"
The author of the test creates a Manifest file in the directory
of the new test, identifying:
The creator of the test.
The test type.
A description of the test.
The RDF/XML files used in the test.
The status as
"PROPOSED"
At least one of:
An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of
some property or class in the OWL namespace).
An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI
as specified in the OWL issues list
[OWL Issues]
).
Some other rationale for the test.
A.2. Approval
At the chair's discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put to the Working Group
in the weekly telecon or at a face-to-face meeting.
Tests are approved by Working Group decision,

with status 'APPROVED' or 'EXTRACREDIT'.
The Working Group may take account of favorable review
of the tests and/or implementation reports, as well as other factors.
If the Working Group approves a test, then it is included in the test case document.
The Working Group may reject a test, in which case its status is
changed to
"REJECTED"
. This does not indicate that the
converse of the test has been accepted. There may be stylistic
or other grounds for rejecting technically correct tests.
The Working Group has complete discretion to approve or reject tests
independent of their conformance with this process or their conformance
with the OWL Working Drafts.
In the light of new information, and at the chairs' discretion, the Working Group
may review any previous decision regarding any test cases. The status of
"OBSOLETED"
may be used where a test has ceased to be appropriate.
A.3. Modification
The editors may
make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests.
This includes:
Editorial changes to text in the test descriptions.
Fixing of typos and trivial errors.
Moving tests to conform with document naming conventions.
Renaming and renumbering tests and test files.
Substantive changes resulting from other Working Group decisions.
Stylistic changes reflecting changes to the
preferences
expressed in this document.
B. Stylistic Preferences (Informative)
There is a preference for the following stylistic
rules.
None of these rules is obligatory, but test authors should be
minded that it will be easier to gain Working Group consensus
if they follow these rules.
B.1. Use of RDF/XML
Tests should normally be expressed in RDF/XML.
The following RDF/XML grammar rules
[RDF Syntax]
are not used:
Property attributes.
rdf:parseType="Resource"
B.2. Use of
xml:base
Test and manifest files should have an
xml:base
attribute
[XMLBASE]
on
the document element. This should show the preferred URL
of the document, from which it is actually retrievable.
Files that contain no relative URIs may omit the
xml:base
attribute.
B.3. Use of .rdf Suffix
Test and manifest files should use the
".rdf"
suffix. URIs should not. The URL used for
xml:base
declarations
does not have a suffix.
B.4. Use of
example
Domains
All URLs in the test and manifest files should be retrievable Web resources
except for those that use domain names with
"example"
as the penultimate
component (e.g.
"http://www.example.org/ontology#prop"
).
B.5. Copyright
The following copyright statement should be included as an XML
comment in every test file:

B.6. Description
The description should:
Link to relevant parts of of the OWL recommendations.
Clearly distinguish syntactic and semantic concerns.
The description should be included as an XML comment
in each test file, and be included as RDF content in the Manifest file.
B.7. Directory Structure
Tests that relate principally
to some owl property or class, should be put in a directory
named using the local name of that property of class.
Otherwise, tests that relate to an issue should be put in a directory
named like
I3.4
where the issue number is taken from the OWL issue list
[OWL Issues]
B.8. Test Numbering
Each directory should contain tests numbered consecutively from
001
No two tests in a single directory should have the same number.
Each file in a test should have the number of the test at the end of its name, before the suffix.
The rest of the file name should follow the conventions for the test type.
Note:
the approved tests in a directory will not necessarily be contiguously numbered.
Note:
this differs from the RDF Core test case numbering conventions.
B.9. Triple Format of Test Data
Both the approved and proposed tests
are shown both in RDF/XML, which is their normative
form, and in a triples format. This lists the triples
as subject, predicate and object, similar to the
N-triples
format
described in
[RDF Tests]
The following additional conventions are used:
Qnames
stand in for URI references.
Relative URLs are permitted and are with respect to:
The
triple quotes convention
from Python
is sometimes used.
No escaping of non-ASCII characters is required.
The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdf
rdfs
owl
xsd
first
The URL of the first file concatenated with
. The first file
is that named
premises
NNN
.rdf
bad
NNN
.rdf
consistent
NNN
.rdf
inconsistent
NNN
.rdf
or
imports
NNN
.rdf
depending
on the
test type
. (Not used for
true tests
or
OWL for OWL tests
).
second
The URL of the second file concatenated with
The second file is named
conclusions
NNN
.rdf
nonconclusions
NNN
.rdf
or
main
NNN
.rdf
depending
on the
test type
In the N3 syntax
[N3]
used for namespace declarations,
the first four appear as follows:
Namespaces:
@prefix rdf: .
@prefix rdfs: .
@prefix owl: .
@prefix xsd: .
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
Contents
C. Index
C.1. Index of OWL Feature Tests
C.2. Index of OWL Issue Tests
C.3. Index of Miscellaneous Tests
C.4. Index of Description Logic Tests
C.5. Index of Extra Credit Tests
D. Acknowledgments (Informative)
Jeremy Carroll thanks
Oreste Signore
his host at
the
W3C Office in Italy
and
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione
"Alessandro Faedo"
, part of the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
, where Jeremy is a
visiting researcher.
The following people have contributed tests to this document:

Sean Bechhofer,

Ian Horrocks,

Peter F. Patel-Schneider,

Jeff Heflin,

Dan Connolly,

the Guide editors,

Jonathan Borden,

Charles White,

Martin Dürst, Masayasu Ishikawa,

Jim Hendler,

Herman ter Horst,

Dave Reynolds,

and the editors.
Ian Horrocks contributed to
the conformance
section of this document.
Sandro Hawke created the
tests results
page,
that
has been a great help during the Candidate Recommendation phase.
We thank those who gave test reports and other feedback
during the Candidate Recommendation:
Ken Baclawski,
Sean Bechhofer,
Ian Dickinson,
Michael Grove,
Sandro Hawke,
Ian Horrocks,
Minsu Jang,
Gary Ng,
Mehrdad Omidvari,
Bijan Parsia,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
Dave Reynolds,
Rob Shearer,
Evren Sirin,
Charles White
and
Youyong Zou.
We also thank the many others who helped develop the systems which
produced these reports.
This document is the result of extensive discussions within the
Web Ontology Working Group
as a whole. The partipants in this Working Group included:
Yasser alSafadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean
Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Stephen Buswell, Jeremy Carroll, Dan
Connolly, Peter Crowther, Jonathan Dale, Jos De Roo, David De
Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jérôme Euzenat, Tim
Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Sandro Hawke, Patrick Hayes, Jeff Heflin,
Ziv Hellman, James Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian
Horrocks, Jane Hunter, Rüdiger Klein, Natasha Kravtsova, Ora
Lassila, Deborah McGuinness, Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Mehrdad
Omidvari, Martin Pike, Marwan Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Noboru
Shimizu, Michael K. Smith, John Stanton, Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman
ter Horst, David Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Bernard Vatant,
Raphael Volz, Evan Wallace, Christopher Welty, Charles White,
Frederik Brysse, Francesco Iannuzzelli, Massimo Marchiori, Michael
Sintek and John Yanosy.
E. Changes Since Proposed Recommendation
This section gives the changes
between this document and the
OWL Test Cases Proposed Recommendation
The term
datatype map
is used instead of
the term
datatype theory
, for consistency with the OWL and RDF Semantics.
This occurred a number of times, including in the descriptions of tests
miscellaneous-204
miscellaneous-205
and
I5.8-012
The last of these consequentially required other minor
rephrasing.
Updated references to RDF and OWL documents.
Added a paragraph near end of
section 4.2.2
, clarifying that a datatype map of
an OWL Full consistency checker, (being a datatype map from RDF Semantics)
"MUST" contain an entry for rdf:XMLLiteral.
This makes explicit a requirement that was already implicit in the PR
document. Also clarified that the datatype map in the definition
of
an OWL Full consistent document
is as defined in RDF Semantics, by changing the link.
Consequentially, made explicit reference to RDF Semantics (this reference
was implicit in the OWL Test Proposed Recommendation).
Corrected an error in the metadata of test
miscellaneous-205
which is not
applicable for OWL Full, since rdf:XMLLiteral is a required datatype for OWL
Full. This change is visible as the deletion of the word "Full" from the
header of the test.
This error in the OWL Test
Candidate
and
Proposed
Recommendation appears to
have been relatively benign:
Test
miscellaneous-205
was passed by FOWL, Pellet, OWLP, Hoolet and failed
by Consvisor.
The related test
miscellaneous-204
was passed by Pellet,
Consvisor and Euler.
OWLP, Pellet and Hoolet being explicitly OWL DL
reasoners continue to pass test miscellaneous-205 appropriately.
Consvisor
being an OWL Full system which supports rdf:XMLLiteral already conforms with
this implicit constraint of the OWL PR.
F. References
Normative
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available at
[RDF Concepts]
RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax
Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available at
[RDF Syntax]
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)
Dave Beckett, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available at
[RDF Semantics]
RDF Semantics
Patrick Hayes, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available at
[RFC 2119]
RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
. S. Bradner,
IETF. March 1997. This document is
[RDF Schema for OWL]
Mike Dean, ed.
World Wide Web Consortium.
[XML Schema Datatypes]
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes.
Paul V. Biron and Ashok Malhotra, eds.
W3C Recommendation 02 May 2000.
Latest version is available at
Informative
[RDF Tests]
RDF Test Cases
Jan Grant and Dave Beckett, Editors, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ .
[OWL Guide]
OWL Web Ontology Language
Guide
Michael K. Smith, Chris Welty, Deborah L. McGuinness, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ .
[OWL Overview]
OWL Web Ontology Language
Overview
Deborah L. McGuinness and
Frank van Harmelen, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
Latest version
available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ .
[DAML+OIL]
DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description
Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, Ian Horrocks,
Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein.
W3C Note 18 December 2001.
Latest version is available at
[Dublin Core]
[N3]
Primer: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly
[OWL Issues]
Web Ontology Issue Status
Michael K. Smith, ed.
26 Feb 2003.
[W3C CVS]
Use of CVS in W3C
(member-only link).
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
Gerald Oskoboiny.
2002.
[XHTML]
XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language
W3C Recommendation, S. Pemberton
et
al.
, 26 January 2000.
Available at:
[XMLBASE]
XML Base
, J. Marsh, Editor,
W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium, 27 June 2001.
This version of XML Base is
The
latest version of XML Base
is at
[Practical Reasoning]
Practical reasoning for expressive description logics
I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies, 1999,
in
Proc. of LPAR'99, vol. 1705 of LNAI.
[XP]
Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change
Kent Beck.
5 Oct 1999.
Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201616416.
[Heinsohn et al.]
AI 68 (1994) pp367-397.
[DIMACS]
Satisfiability Suggested Format
challenge@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Found at
ftp://dimacs.rutgers.edu/pub/challenge/satisfiability/doc/satformat.tex
May 8, 1993.
[DL 98 Systems Comparison]
DL Systems Comparison
at
1998 International Workshop on
Description Logics (DL 98)
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Ian Horrocks.
June, 1998.