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.
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.
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.
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 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/.
As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
the Web Ontology Working Group provides a
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.
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.
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.
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
statusEXTRACREDIT 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.
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 ManifestNNN.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.
These tests use one document.
It is named badNNN.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.
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named conclusionsNNN.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).
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named nonconclusionsNNN.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).
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.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.
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.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.
These tests use more than two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
another is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, the rest have names
like supportNNN-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).
These tests use two documents.
One is named importsNNN.rdf,
the other is named mainNNN.rdf.
These
tests indicate the
interaction between owl:imports
and the sublanguage levels of the main 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 http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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.
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).
Where otest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#
and rtest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema#.
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).
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
http://oiled.man.example.net/test#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
this as as follows:
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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.
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.
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").
The following copyright statement should be included as an XML
comment in every test file:
<!--
Copyright World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and
Mathematics, Keio University).
All Rights Reserved.
Please see the full Copyright clause at
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html>
$Id: Overview.html,v 1.12 2018/10/09 13:30:05 denis Exp $
-->
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].
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:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/.
The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
owl
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
xsd
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
first
The URL of the first file concatenated with #. The first file
is that named premisesNNN.rdf, badNNN.rdf, consistentNNN.rdf, inconsistentNNN.rdf
or importsNNN.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 conclusionsNNN.rdf, nonconclusionsNNN.rdf or mainNNN.rdf depending
on the
test type.
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
the first four appear as follows:
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.
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.
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ .
RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax,
Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ .
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised).
Dave Beckett, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ .
RDF Semantics.
Patrick Hayes, Editor,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ .
Latest version available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ .
RDF Test Cases,
Jan Grant and Dave Beckett, Editors, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ .
OWL Web Ontology Language
Guide.
Michael K. Smith, Chris Welty, Deborah L. McGuinness, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ .
OWL Web Ontology Language
Overview .
Deborah L. McGuinness and
Frank van Harmelen, Editors,
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/ .
Latest version available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ .
XML Base, J. Marsh, Editor,
W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium, 27 June 2001.
This version of XML Base is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/.
The latest version of XML Base is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/.