index.html
96.7 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd'><html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance</title>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
<style type="text/css">
.editsection { display: none; }
</style>
<link href="owl.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<script src="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/toggles.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
</head>
<body>
<div class="head">
<a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" height="48" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" width="72" /></a><h1 id="title" style="clear:both">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language <br /><span id="short-title">Conformance</span></h1>
<h2 id="W3C-doctype">W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009</h2>
<!-- no inplace warning -->
<dl>
<dt>This version:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/" id="this-version-url">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/</a></dd>
<dt>Latest version (series 2):</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/</a></dd>
<dt>Latest Recommendation:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-conformance">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-conformance</a></dd>
<dt>Previous version:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-conformance-20090922/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-conformance-20090922/</a> (<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/diff-from-20090922">color-coded diff</a>)</dd>
</dl>
<dl><dt>Editors:</dt><dd><a href="http://www.clarkparsia.com/about/profiles/msmith">Michael Smith</a>, Clark & Parsia</dd>
<dd><a href="http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/">Ian Horrocks</a>, Oxford University Computing Laboratory</dd>
<dd><a href="http://korrekt.org/">Markus Krötzsch</a>, FZI Research Center for Information Technology</dd>
<dd><a href="http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/Birte.Glimm/">Birte Glimm</a>, Oxford University Computing Laboratory</dd>
<dt>Contributors: (in alphabetical order)</dt><dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/">Sandro Hawke</a>, W3C/MIT</dd>
<dd><a href="http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horridgm/">Matthew Horridge</a>, University of Manchester</dd>
<dd><a href="http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/">Bijan Parsia</a>, University of Manchester</dd>
<dd><a href="http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider">Michael Schneider</a>, FZI Research Center for Information Technology</dd>
</dl>
<p>Please refer to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/errata"><strong>errata</strong></a> for this document, which may include some normative corrections.</p>
<p>This document is also available in these non-normative formats: <a href="http://www.w3.org/2009/pdf/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027.pdf">PDF version</a>.</p>
<p>See also <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/translation/owl2-conformance">translations</a>.</p>
<p class="copyright"><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a> © 2009 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><acronym title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym></a><sup>®</sup> (<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</acronym></a>, <a href="http://www.ercim.org/"><acronym title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</acronym></a>, <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>), All Rights Reserved. W3C <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>, <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document use</a> rules apply.</p>
</div>
<hr />
<h2><a id="abstract" name="abstract">Abstract</a></h2>
<div>
<div><p>The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/" title="Document Overview">Document Overview</a> describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents.</p><p>This document describes the conditions that OWL 2 tools must satisfy in order to be conformant with the language specification. It also presents a common format for OWL 2 test cases that both illustrate the features of the language and can be used for testing conformance.</p></div>
</div>
<h2 class="no-toc no-num">
<a id="status" name="status">Status of this Document</a>
</h2>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="may-be">May Be Superseded</h4>
<p><em>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 <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C technical reports index</a> at http://www.w3.org/TR/.</em></p>
<!-- no eventStatusExtra -->
<!-- no statusExtra -->
<div>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="sotd-xml-dep">XML Schema Datatypes Dependency</h4>
<p>OWL 2 is defined to use datatypes defined in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/">XML Schema Definition Language (XSD)</a>. As of this writing, the latest W3C Recommendation for XSD is version 1.0, with <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/">version 1.1</a> progressing toward Recommendation. OWL 2 has been designed to take advantage of the new datatypes and clearer explanations available in XSD 1.1, but for now those advantages are being partially put on hold. Specifically, until XSD 1.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, the elements of OWL 2 which are based on it should be considered <em>optional</em>, as detailed in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#XML_Schema_Datatypes">Conformance, section 2.3</a>. Upon the publication of XSD 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation, those elements cease to be optional and are to be considered required as otherwise specified.</p>
<p>We suggest that for now developers and users follow the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-1-20090430/">XSD 1.1 Candidate Recommendation</a>. Based on discussions between the Schema and OWL Working Groups, we do not expect any implementation changes will be necessary as XSD 1.1 advances to Recommendation.</p>
</div>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="status-changes">Summary of Changes</h4>
<div>There have been no <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#substantive-change">substantive</a> changes since the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-conformance-20090922/">previous version</a>. For details on the minor changes see the <a href="#changelog">change log</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/diff-from-20090922">color-coded diff</a>.</div>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="please">Please Send Comments</h4><p>Please send any comments to <a class="mailto" href="mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org">public-owl-comments@w3.org</a>
(<a class="http" href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/">public
archive</a>). Although work on this document by the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/">OWL Working Group</a> is complete, comments may be addressed in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/errata">errata</a> or in future revisions. Open discussion among developers is welcome at <a class="mailto" href="mailto:public-owl-dev@w3.org">public-owl-dev@w3.org</a> (<a class="http" href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/">public archive</a>).</p>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="endorsement">Endorsed By W3C</h4>
<p><em>This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. 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.</em></p>
<h4 class="no-toc no-num" id="patents">Patents</h4>
<p><em>This document was produced by a group operating under the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/">5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy</a>. W3C maintains a <a href="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/41712/status" rel="disclosure">public list of any patent disclosures</a> made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.</em></p>
<hr title="Separator After Status Section" />
<p>
</p>
<script type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/
function show_short_toc() {
set_display_by_class('li','toclevel-3','none');
set_display_by_id('short-toc','none');
set_display_by_id('full-toc','');
}
function show_full_toc() {
set_display_by_class('li','toclevel-3','');
set_display_by_id('short-toc','');
set_display_by_id('full-toc','none');
}
/*]]>*/</script>
<p>
</p>
<table class="toc" id="toc" summary="Contents"><tr><td><div id="toctitle"><h2>Table of Contents</h2></div>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Introduction"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Introduction</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Conformance_.28Normative.29"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Conformance (Normative)</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Document_Conformance"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Document Conformance</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Syntactic_Conformance"><span class="tocnumber">2.1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Syntactic Conformance</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Tool_Conformance"><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Tool Conformance</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Entailment_Checker"><span class="tocnumber">2.2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Entailment Checker</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Query_Answering_Tool"><span class="tocnumber">2.2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Query Answering Tool</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#XML_Schema_Datatypes"><span class="tocnumber">2.3</span> <span class="toctext">XML Schema Datatypes</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Test_Cases"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Test Cases</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Test_Types"><span class="tocnumber">3.1</span> <span class="toctext">Test Types</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Syntactic_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Syntactic Tests</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Profile_and_Species_Identification_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Profile and Species Identification Tests</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Syntax_Translation_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.1.2</span> <span class="toctext">Syntax Translation Tests</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Semantic_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.2</span> <span class="toctext">Semantic Tests</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Entailment_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Entailment Tests</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Non-Entailment_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Non-Entailment Tests</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Consistency_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.2.3</span> <span class="toctext">Consistency Tests</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-4"><a href="#Inconsistency_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.1.2.4</span> <span class="toctext">Inconsistency Tests</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Test_Case_Format"><span class="tocnumber">3.2</span> <span class="toctext">Test Case Format</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Input_Ontologies"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Input Ontologies</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Type"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Type</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Normative_Syntax"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.3</span> <span class="toctext">Normative Syntax</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Applicable_Semantics"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.4</span> <span class="toctext">Applicable Semantics</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Species"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.5</span> <span class="toctext">Species</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Profiles"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.6</span> <span class="toctext">Profiles</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Imported_Ontologies"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.7</span> <span class="toctext">Imported Ontologies</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Status"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.8</span> <span class="toctext">Status</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Identifier"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.9</span> <span class="toctext">Identifier</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Creator"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.10</span> <span class="toctext">Creator</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Description"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.11</span> <span class="toctext">Description</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Specification_Reference"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.12</span> <span class="toctext">Specification Reference</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Issue_Reference"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.13</span> <span class="toctext">Issue Reference</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Complete_Test_Ontology"><span class="tocnumber">3.2.14</span> <span class="toctext">Complete Test Ontology</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Test_Case_Repositories"><span class="tocnumber">3.3</span> <span class="toctext">Test Case Repositories</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Approval_Process_Overview"><span class="tocnumber">3.4</span> <span class="toctext">Approval Process Overview</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Changes_From_WebOnt_Tests"><span class="tocnumber">3.5</span> <span class="toctext">Changes From WebOnt Tests</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Formatting_Changes"><span class="tocnumber">3.5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Formatting Changes</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Changes_to_Test_Types"><span class="tocnumber">3.5.2</span> <span class="toctext">Changes to Test Types</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Changes_to_Process"><span class="tocnumber">3.5.3</span> <span class="toctext">Changes to Process</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Appendix:_An_Inconsistent_Ontology"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">Appendix: An Inconsistent Ontology</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Appendix:_Change_Log_.28Informative.29"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">Appendix: Change Log (Informative)</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Changes_Since_Proposed_Recommendation"><span class="tocnumber">5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Changes Since Proposed Recommendation</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Changes_Since_Candidate_Recommendation"><span class="tocnumber">5.2</span> <span class="toctext">Changes Since Candidate Recommendation</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Acknowledgments"><span class="tocnumber">6</span> <span class="toctext">Acknowledgments</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#References"><span class="tocnumber">7</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li>
</ul>
</td></tr></table><script type="text/javascript"> if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } </script>
<p><br />
</p>
<a name="Introduction"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">1 Introduction </span></h2>
<p>This document describes conformance conditions for OWL 2, and introduces the format of OWL 2 test cases that are provided as part of the OWL 2 Test Case Repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcrepo" title="">OWL 2 Test Cases</a></cite>]. Conformance conditions are described for both OWL 2 documents and for tools that process such documents. In particular, the conformance conditions for an OWL 2 entailment checker are described in some detail.
</p><p>A categorization and common format of test cases is presented. The purpose of test cases is to illustrate various features and to help in testing conformance. The provided set of test cases is "incomplete" in the sense that passing all the tests does not prove that a given system conforms to the OWL 2 specification; failing a test does, however, prove that the system does not conform to the specification. The presented format is intended to facilitate the use of tests by OWL system developers, e.g., in a test harness, as well as the extension of the test suite with new tests.
</p><p>This document does not contain actual test cases. Test cases that have been approved by the Working Group can be found in the OWL 2 Test Case Repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcrepo" title="">OWL 2 Test Cases</a></cite>], and a public test case repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcpubrepo" title="">Contributed Test Cases</a></cite>] is provided as a platform for collecting further test cases even after the termination of the Working Group.
</p><p>The italicized keywords <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em>, <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em>, <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em>, <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em>, and <em class="RFC2119" title="MAY in RFC 2119 context">MAY</em> are used to specify normative features of OWL 2 documents and tools, and are interpreted as specified in RFC 2119 [<cite><a href="#ref-rfc-2119" title="">RFC 2119</a></cite>].
</p>
<a name="Conformance_.28Normative.29"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">2 Conformance (Normative) </span></h2>
<p>This section describes conformance conditions for OWL 2 documents and tools. In particular, it describes the syntactic conditions that characterize OWL 2 ontology documents, including those that conform to the various OWL 2 profiles [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>], and the syntactic and semantic conditions that <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> be satisfied by conformant OWL 2 tools.
</p>
<a name="Document_Conformance"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">2.1 Document Conformance </span></h3>
<p>Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging documents. However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as input(s) <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping" title="">OWL 2 RDF Mapping</a></cite>], and conformant OWL 2 tools that publish ontology documents <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> be able to publish them in the RDF/XML serialization if asked to do so (e.g., via HTTP content negotiation), provided that the ontology can be so serialized. OWL 2 tools <em class="RFC2119" title="MAY in RFC 2119 context">MAY</em> also accept and/or publish ontology documents using other serializations, for example the XML serialization [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-xml-serialization" title="">OWL 2 XML</a></cite>].
</p>
<a name="Syntactic_Conformance"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">2.1.1 Syntactic Conformance </span></h4>
<p>For documents using the RDF/XML serialization, syntactic conformance is defined as follows:
</p><p>An <b>OWL 2 Full ontology document</b> is any RDF/XML document [<cite><a href="#ref-rdf-syntax" title="">RDF Syntax</a></cite>].
</p><p>An <b>OWL 2 DL ontology document</b> is an OWL 2 Full ontology document that can be successfully parsed using the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Canonical_Parsing_of_OWL_2_Ontologies" title="Syntax">canonical parsing process</a> as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>] and the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/#Mapping_from_RDF_Graphs_to_the_Structural_Specification" title="Mapping to RDF Graphs">procedure for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification</a> described in the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping" title="">OWL 2 RDF Mapping</a></cite>] to produce an instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfying all of the restrictions described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontologies" title="Syntax">Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>].
</p><p>An <b>OWL 2 EL ontology document</b> is an OWL 2 DL ontology document where the corresponding instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies the definition of an OWL 2 EL ontology given in the OWL 2 Profiles specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>].
</p><p>An <b>OWL 2 QL ontology document</b> is an OWL 2 DL ontology document where the corresponding instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies the definition of an OWL 2 QL ontology given in the OWL 2 Profiles specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>].
</p><p>An <b>OWL 2 RL ontology document</b> is an OWL 2 DL ontology document where the corresponding instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies the definition of an OWL 2 RL ontology given in the OWL 2 Profiles specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>].
</p><p>For documents using other serializations, conformance is a direct consequence of the relevant serialization specification, the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>] (in particular, the definition of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Canonical_Parsing_of_OWL_2_Ontologies" title="Syntax">canonical parsing process</a>), and the OWL 2 Profiles specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>].
</p>
<div class="anexample">
<p>An XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff it validates against the OWL 2 XML Schema [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-xml-serialization" title="">OWL 2 XML</a></cite>], it can be successfully parsed using the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Canonical_Parsing_of_OWL_2_Ontologies" title="Syntax">canonical parsing process</a> as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>], and the resulting instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies all of the restrictions described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontologies" title="Syntax">Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]; it is an OWL 2 EL (respectively QL, RL) ontology document iff the resulting instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfies the definition of an OWL 2 EL (respectively QL, RL) ontology given in the OWL 2 Profiles specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>].
</p>
</div>
<p>Note that:
</p>
<ol><li> The conditions for document conformance are entirely syntactic and say nothing about semantics. For example, an OWL 2 DL ontology document is simply an OWL 2 Full ontology document that satisfies certain syntactic constraints, and it could be taken as input by tools that use either the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] or the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>].
</li><li> OWL 2 Profiles may support only a reduced set of datatypes. This is, however, a syntactic condition that must be met by documents in order to fall within the relevant profile, and the semantic conditions on the supported datatypes are unchanged, i.e., they are defined by the OWL 2 datatype map. Unsupported datatypes cannot occur in conforming documents, so syntactic and semantic conditions on these datatypes are irrelevant and can be ignored.
</li></ol>
<a name="Tool_Conformance"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">2.2 Tool Conformance </span></h3>
<p>An OWL 2 tool takes one or more OWL 2 ontology documents and checks some (syntactic or semantic) condition. A given tool is characterized by three largely independent parameters:
</p>
<ul><li> the ontology documents it accepts (Full, DL, EL, QL or RL);
</li><li> the semantics it applies (Direct [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] or RDF-Based [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]).
</li></ul>
<p>When the Direct Semantics are being applied, semantic conditions are defined with respect to ontology structures (i.e., instances of the <span class="nonterminal">Ontology</span> class as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]), and we denote with <i>Ont(d)</i> the ontology structure corresponding to an input ontology document <i>d</i>. When the RDF-Based Semantics are being applied, semantic conditions are defined with respect to RDF graphs, and we denote with <i>Ont(d)</i> the RDF graph corresponding to an input ontology document <i>d</i>.
</p><p>As noted above, any conformant OWL 2 tool <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping" title="">OWL 2 RDF Mapping</a></cite>]. Given an ontology document <i>d</i> in the RDF/XML serialization, for a tool applying the Direct Semantics, <i>Ont(d)</i> denotes the ontology structure obtained by applying to <i>d</i> the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Canonical_Parsing_of_OWL_2_Ontologies" title="Syntax">canonical parsing process</a> as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>] using, in steps
2.2 and 3.3, the procedure for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification described in the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping" title="">OWL 2 RDF Mapping</a></cite>]; for a tool applying the RDF-Based Semantics, <i>Ont(d)</i> simply denotes the RDF graph corresponding to <i>d</i>, as defined in the RDF/XML Syntax Specification [<cite><a href="#ref-rdf-syntax" title="">RDF Syntax</a></cite>].
</p><p>A conformant OWL 2 tool <em class="RFC2119" title="MAY in RFC 2119 context">MAY</em> also accept ontology documents using other serializations, for example Turtle [<cite><a href="#ref-turtle" title="">Turtle</a></cite>] or the XML Serialization [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-xml-serialization" title="">OWL 2 XML</a></cite>]. Alternative RDF serializations are treated in much the same way as RDF/XML, i.e., <i>Ont(d)</i> denotes either the ontology structure obtained from <i>d</i> via the procedure for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification or the RDF graph corresponding to <i>d</i>, depending on the semantics being applied. When using non-RDF serializations, e.g., the XML Serialization [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-xml-serialization" title="">OWL 2 XML</a></cite>], <i>Ont(d)</i> denotes either the ontology structure obtained from <i>d</i> using the canonical parsing process as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>], or the RDF graph obtained by applying the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping" title="">OWL 2 RDF Mapping</a></cite>] to the ontology structure obtained from <i>d</i>, depending on the semantics being applied.
</p><p>The conformance conditions related to entailment checking and query answering are defined below. Similar conditions would apply to other OWL 2 tools. In particular, they <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> be consistent with the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] and/or the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>].
</p>
<a name="Entailment_Checker"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">2.2.1 Entailment Checker </span></h4>
<p>An OWL 2 entailment checker takes as input two OWL 2 ontology documents <i>d<sub>1</sub></i> and <i>d<sub>2</sub></i> and checks whether <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> with respect to either the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] or the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]. When using the Direct Semantics, <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> denote ontology structures that satisfy all of the restrictions on OWL 2 ontologies described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontologies" title="Syntax">Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]; when using the RDF-Based Semantics, <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> denote RDF graphs. Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker:
</p>
<ul><li> <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> provide a means to determine any limits it has on datatype lexical forms – they could, for example, be listed in supporting documentation (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Maps" title="Syntax">Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]); and
</li><li> <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> provide a means to determine the semantics it uses (either the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] or the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]) – for example, by specifying in its supporting documentation which of the two semantics it uses.
</li></ul>
<p>An OWL 2 entailment checker returns a single result, being <span class="name">True</span>, <span class="name">False</span>, <span class="name">Unknown</span> or <span class="name">Error</span>. <span class="name">True</span> indicates that the relevant entailment holds; <span class="name">False</span> indicates that the relevant entailment does not hold; <span class="name">Unknown</span> indicates that the algorithm used by the checker is not able to determine if the entailment holds; <span class="name">Error</span> indicates that the checker encountered an error condition such as receiving an invalid input or exceeding resource limits. While sometimes needed (for example, for pragmatic reasons), <span class="name">Unknown</span> and <span class="name">Error</span> are not desired responses for valid inputs.
</p><p>Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker:
</p>
<ul><li> <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">Error</span> if the parsing process fails (for example, due to network errors);
</li><li> <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">Error</span> if an input document uses datatypes that are not supported by its datatype map or datatype lexical forms that exceed any limits it has on datatype lexical forms – for example, very large integers (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Maps" title="Syntax">Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]); and
</li><li> <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">Error</span> if the computation fails, for example as a result of exceeding resource limits.
</li></ul>
<p>Five different conformance classes of OWL 2 entailment checkers are defined:
</p><p><b>An OWL 2 Full entailment checker</b> is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 Full ontology documents as input. It <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">True</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">False</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>. It <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span>.
</p><p><b>An OWL 2 DL entailment checker</b> is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 DL ontology documents as input. It <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">True</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">False</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>. It <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span>.
</p><p><b>An OWL 2 EL entailment checker</b> is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 EL ontology documents as input. It <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">True</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">False</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>. It <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span>.
</p><p><b>An OWL 2 QL entailment checker</b> is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 QL ontology documents as input. It <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">True</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">False</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>. It <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span>.
</p><p><b>An OWL 2 RL entailment checker</b> is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 Full ontology documents as input. It <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">True</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> return <span class="name">False</span> only when <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i>. If applying the Direct Semantics, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span>. If applying the RDF-Based Semantics, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span> if it is possible to derive <span class="name">True</span> using the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules; more formally, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return <span class="name">Unknown</span> if <i>FO(Ont(d<sub>1</sub>))</i> ∪ <i>R</i> entails <i>FO(Ont(d<sub>2</sub>))</i> under the standard first-order semantics, where <i>R</i> denotes the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules, and <i>FO(Ont(d<sub>i</sub>))</i> denotes the first-order theory corresponding to <i>Ont(d<sub>i</sub>)</i> in which triples are represented using the <span class="name">T</span> predicate – that is, <span class="name">T(s, p, o)</span> represents an RDF triple with the subject <span class="name">s</span>, predicate <span class="name">p</span>, and the object <span class="name">o</span>.
</p><p>Note that it follows from <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#Theorem-PR1" title="Profiles">Theorem PR1</a> of Profiles [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-profiles" title="">OWL 2 Profiles</a></cite>] that it is always safe for an OWL 2 RL entailment checker using the RDF-Based Semantics to return <span class="name">False</span> if:
</p>
<ul><li> <i>d<sub>1</sub></i> and <i>d<sub>2</sub></i> are OWL 2 RL ontology documents;
</li><li> <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> satisfy the constraints described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#Theorem-PR1" title="Profiles">Theorem PR1</a>; and
</li><li> it is not possible to derive <span class="name">True</span> using the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules (see above for a more formal definition of what this means).
</li></ul>
<p>An OWL 2 entailment checker is <b>terminating</b> if, given sufficient resources (memory, addressing space, etc.), it will always return <span class="name">True</span>, <span class="name">False</span>, or <span class="name">Unknown</span> in a finite amount of time (i.e., CPU cycles) on syntactically-valid inputs; it is <b>complete</b> if, given sufficient resources, it will always return <span class="name">True</span> or <span class="name">False</span> on syntactically-valid inputs.
</p>
<a name="Query_Answering_Tool"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">2.2.2 Query Answering Tool </span></h4>
<p>Query answering is closely related to entailment checking (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/#Inference_Problems" title="Direct Semantics">Section 2.5</a> of the OWL 2 Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>]). A query can be thought of as an ontology <i>Q</i> in which some of the terms have been replaced by variables <i>x<sub>1</sub>, ..., x<sub>n</sub></i>. Given an ontology <i>O</i>, a tuple <i>t = <t<sub>1</sub>, ..., t<sub>n</sub>></i> is <b>an</b> answer for <i>Q</i> with respect to <i>O</i> if <i>O</i> entails <i>Q<sub>[x/t]</sub></i>, where <i>Q<sub>[x/t]</sub></i> is derived from <i>Q</i> by substituting the variables <i>x<sub>1</sub>, ..., x<sub>n</sub></i> with <i>t<sub>1</sub>, ..., t<sub>n</sub></i>; <b>the</b> answer to <i>Q</i> with respect to <i>O</i> is the set of all such tuples.
</p><p>Although highly inefficient in practice, query answering could be performed simply by iterating through all possible n-tuples formed from terms occurring in <i>O</i> and checking the corresponding entailment using an OWL 2 entailment checker. The properties of OWL 2 entailment checkers mean that the resulting answer will always be <b>sound</b>, i.e., every tuple occurring in the answer set is an answer to the query. If any one of the entailment checks might return <span class="name">Unknown</span>, then the answer to the query may be <b>incomplete</b>, i.e., there may exist a tuple <i>t</i> that is an answer to the query but that does not occur in the answer set; implementations <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> issue a warning in this case.
</p><p>The properties of OWL 2 Full, DL, EL and QL entailment checkers mean that a query answering tool based on such an entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> be both sound and complete. In the case of OWL 2 RL, a query answering tool based on an OWL 2 RL entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> be sound; a tool based on an OWL 2 RL entailment checker using the Direct Semantics <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> also be complete; and a tool based on an OWL 2 RL entailment checker using the RDF-Based Semantics and the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> also be complete if both <i>O</i> and <i>Q</i> are OWL 2 RL ontology documents, and <i>Ont(O)</i> and <i>Ont(Q)</i> satisfy the constraints described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#Theorem-PR1" title="Profiles">Theorem PR1</a>.
</p>
<a name="XML_Schema_Datatypes"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">2.3 XML Schema Datatypes </span></h3>
<p>As of the publication of this document, XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes is not yet a W3C Recommendation (see <a class="external free" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/">http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/</a> for the latest version). Both the OWL Working Group and the XML Schema Working Group are confident that there will be only minor changes before it becomes a W3C Recommendation. In order to take advantage of the anticipated corrections and new features sooner, while also providing stability in case the specification does not advance as expected, conformance to OWL 2 as it relates to XML Schema Datatypes is defined as follows:
</p>
<ul><li> If XSD 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes becomes a W3C Recommendation, all references in OWL 2 to XML Schema Datatype features will be normative references to the 1.1 Recommendation.
</li><li> Until that time, references in OWL 2 to XML Schema Datatype features operate as follows:
<ul><li> If XSD 1.0 defines the features, then the reference is normative to the 1.0 definition [<cite><a href="#ref-xml-schema-datatypes" title="">XML Schema Datatypes</a></cite>];
</li><li> otherwise, the feature is optional in OWL 2 and the reference is informative only.
</li></ul>
</li></ul>
<p>This "change in normative reference" is effective as of the publication of XSD 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation. However, W3C expects to publish a new edition of OWL 2 once XSD 1.1 becomes a Recommendation to update the reference explicitly.
</p>
<a name="Test_Cases"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">3 Test Cases </span></h2>
<p>This section introduces various types of test cases. Each test case describes certain inputs that can be provided to OWL 2 tools and specifies the behavior required to satisfy the conformance conditions described above, given the inputs. Test cases adhere to a common format that simplifies automatic processing, e.g. in a test harness, which is detailed below.
</p><p>Concrete sets of test cases can be found in various repositories as described below. They are divided into a fixed set of test cases that have been approved based on a process defined later in this section, and an open set of user-contributed test cases that can be collected via a dedicated web site.
</p>
<a name="Test_Types"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">3.1 Test Types </span></h3>
<p>There are several distinguished types of test cases detailed in the following sub-sections. The type of a test determines the task and expected outcome of the test. The type thus also affects the data associated to a test case, e.g., since only certain kinds tests require the specification of an entailed ontology.
</p><p>While all test cases have some primary purpose specified by their type, it is often possible to use the provided data for other tests as well. For example, the inputs of any negative entailment test can also be used in a consistency test. Such re-interpretations of test cases can generally be useful, depending on the tool being validated and the goal of validation. For this reason, a concrete test case may have more than one type and thus allow multiple uses.
</p>
<a name="Syntactic_Tests"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.1 Syntactic Tests </span></h4>
<p>Syntactic tests can be applied to tools that process OWL 2 ontology documents, or that transform between various syntactic forms of OWL 2. These modes of operation are not covered by any conformance requirement, but syntactic tests may still be useful in tool development.
</p>
<a name="Profile_and_Species_Identification_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.1.1 Profile and Species Identification Tests </span></h5>
<p>Profile and species identification tests validate a tool's recognition of <a href="#Syntactic_Conformance" title="">Syntactic Conformance</a>. These tests require at least one input ontology document. Each test describes the conformance of <i>all</i> provided input ontology documents relative to structural and syntactic restrictions that are specified by the test case.
</p><p>Since all test cases usually specify the <a href="#Profiles" title="">profiles</a> and <a href="#Species" title="">species</a> of the input ontology documents, essentially all test cases can be used as profile identification tests.
</p>
<a name="Syntax_Translation_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.1.2 Syntax Translation Tests </span></h5>
<p>Syntax translation tests validate the translation of OWL 2 ontology documents from one syntax to another, using the definition of structural equivalence defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]. Each test case of this type specifies input ontology documents in multiple syntactic forms which describe structurally equivalent ontologies. Tools that parse and serialize ontology documents may use this data to verify their correct operation. Note that tests of this kind do not prescribe a particular syntactic form to be the outcome of a syntactic translation: Different serializations are correct as long as they describe the same ontological structure.
</p><p>Tests of this type specify multiple <a href="#Input_Ontologies" title="">input ontology documents</a>, and indicate which of the provided syntactic forms are <a href="#Normative_Syntax" title="">normative</a> for the translation test.
</p>
<a name="Semantic_Tests"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.2 Semantic Tests </span></h4>
<p>Semantic tests specifically address the functionality of <a href="#Entailment_Checker" title="">OWL 2 entailment checkers</a>. Each test case of this type specifies necessary requirements that <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST in RFC 2119 context">MUST</em> be satisfied by any entailment checker that meets the according conformance conditions.
</p><p>Each semantic test case also <a href="#Applicable_Semantics" title="">specifies</a> whether it is applicable to the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>], to the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>], or to both. A test is only relevant for testing conformance of tools that use a semantics to which the test applies.
</p><p>Semantic tests specify one or more OWL 2 ontology documents and check semantic conditions defined with respect to abstract structures obtained from the ontology documents, typically via a parsing process. When using the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] the abstract structure is an OWL 2 ontology as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]; when using the RDF-Based semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>] the abstract structure is an RDF graph. We will denote with <i>Ont(d)</i> the abstract structure obtained from the ontology document <i>d</i>.
</p>
<a name="Entailment_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.2.1 Entailment Tests </span></h5>
<p>Entailment tests (or positive entailment tests) specify two ontology documents: a premise ontology document <i>d<sub>1</sub></i> and a conclusion ontology document <i>d<sub>2</sub></i> where <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> entails <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> with respect to the specified semantics. If provided with inputs <i>d<sub>1</sub></i> and <i>d<sub>2</sub></i> (and, if applicable, with access to any imported ontologies), a conforming entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> return True, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return Unknown, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> return False.
</p><p>In all entailment tests, the ontologies <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> are consistent. Therefore, all entailment tests are also consistency tests.
</p>
<a name="Non-Entailment_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.2.2 Non-Entailment Tests </span></h5>
<p>Non-Entailment tests (or negative entailment tests) specify two ontology documents: a premise ontology document <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and a non-conclusion ontology <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> where <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> does not entail <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> with respect to the specified semantics. If provided with inputs <i>d<sub>1</sub></i> and <i>d<sub>2</sub></i> (and, if applicable, with access to any imported ontologies), a conforming entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> return False, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return Unknown, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> return True.
</p><p>In all non-entailment tests, the ontologies <i>Ont(d<sub>1</sub>)</i> and <i>Ont(d<sub>2</sub>)</i> are consistent. Therefore, all non-entailment tests are also consistency tests.
</p>
<a name="Consistency_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.2.3 Consistency Tests </span></h5>
<p>Consistency tests validate a tool's recognition of consistency, as defined in the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] and the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]. These tests specify an input ontology document, the premise ontology document <i>d</i>, where <i>Ont(d)</i> is consistent with respect to the specified semantics.
</p><p>Entailment checkers that directly support consistency checking <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> determine <i>Ont(d)</i> to be consistent, and <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> determine <i>Ont(d)</i> to be inconsistent. Entailment checkers that do not support this operation may execute consistency tests as if they were non-entailment tests: if the ontology <i>Ont(d)</i> is consistent, then <i>Ont(d)</i> does not entail the inconsistent ontology <i>O<sub>in</sub></i> (see <a href="#Appendix:_An_Inconsistent_Ontology" title="">Appendix</a>). Given inputs <i>d</i> and <i>d<sub>in</sub></i>, a conforming entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> thus return False, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return Unknown, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> return True.
</p>
<a name="Inconsistency_Tests"></a><h5> <span class="mw-headline">3.1.2.4 Inconsistency Tests </span></h5>
<p>Inconsistency tests validate a tool's recognition of consistency, as defined in the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] and the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]. These tests specify an input ontology document, the premise ontology document <i>d</i>, where <i>Ont(d)</i> is inconsistent with respect to the specified semantics.
</p><p>Entailment checkers that directly support inconsistency checking <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> determine <i>Ont(d)</i> to be inconsistent, and <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> determine <i>Ont(d)</i> to be consistent. Entailment checkers that do not support this operation may transform inconsistency tests into entailment tests: if the ontology <i>Ont(d)</i> is inconsistent, then <i>Ont(d)</i> entails any inconsistent ontology – e.g., the inconsistent ontology <i>O<sub>in</sub></i> given in the <a href="#Appendix:_An_Inconsistent_Ontology" title="">Appendix</a>. Given inputs <i>d</i> and <i>d<sub>in</sub></i>, a conforming entailment checker <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD</em> thus return True, it <em class="RFC2119" title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context">SHOULD NOT</em> return Unknown, and it <em class="RFC2119" title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context">MUST NOT</em> return False.
</p>
<a name="Test_Case_Format"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">3.2 Test Case Format </span></h3>
<p>Test cases are described using OWL 2, based on a test case ontology documented in this section. The given test case format is mainly based upon two design choices. Firstly, each test case in OWL 2 can be completely represented within a single file, and the location of this file is not relevant. In this way, all test cases adhering to this format are completely portable, and can be published and distributed freely.
</p><p>A second design choice was to allow individual test case documents to be processed with any OWL tool that can handle at least OWL 2 DL ontology documents. Thus the presented test case ontology and all test case documents using it conform to the definition of <a href="#Syntactic_Conformance" title="">OWL 2 DL ontology documents</a>. This design choice also motivates the use of dedicated IRIs (based on the namespace prefix http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/testOntology#) for all elements of the test case ontology: Existing test ontologies, such as the ones used by the WebOnt working group [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-1-test-cases" title="">OWL 1 Test Cases</a></cite>], have not been crafted this way and do not meet the above requirements. Details of the changes in the test case format as compared to WebOnt are found in <a href="#Changes_From_WebOnt_Tests" title="">Section 3.5</a>.
</p><p>Overall, the given design is intended to ensure maximal compatibility and ease of use in a variety of different tools. This section describes various elements of the test ontology grouped according to their purpose, and it includes axioms using the functional-style syntax [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]. The complete test ontology is summarized in the last section. This ontology uses OWL as a tool for conceptual modeling, describing the intended structure of test case documents – it is, however, not necessary to compute entailments of this ontology in order to use the provided test case documents.
</p>
<a name="Input_Ontologies"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.1 Input Ontologies </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:inputOntology</i> data property associates a test with one or more input ontologies. Values of this property (and thus of all of its subproperties) are of type <i>xsd:string</i>. Subproperties are used to differentiate among multiple input ontologies that are provided for different purposes depending on the type of test:
</p>
<pre> Declaration( DataProperty( :inputOntology ) )
DataPropertyRange( :inputOntology xsd:string )
Declaration( DataProperty( :premiseOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :conclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :nonConclusionOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :premiseOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :conclusionOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :nonConclusionOntology :inputOntology )
</pre>
<p>Similarly, further subproperties of <i>:inputOntology</i> are used to indicate the syntax of the input ontology:
</p>
<pre> Declaration( DataProperty( :fsInputOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :owlXmlInputOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :rdfXmlInputOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsInputOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlInputOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlInputOntology :inputOntology )
DisjointDataProperties( :fsInputOntology :owlXmlInputOntology :rdfXmlInputOntology )
</pre>
<p>To fully specify the purpose <i>and</i> syntax of a given input ontology, the test case ontology specifies "intersection properties" that combine (i.e. are subproperties of) two of the above properties. An example is the property <i>:rdfXmlPremiseOntology</i>, used to denote a premise ontology in RDF/XML syntax. These more specific properties are used in many test cases, the only exception being pure syntactic tests where the purpose of the given input ontologies does not need to be specified.
</p>
<a name="Type"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.2 Type </span></h4>
<p>All test cases are individuals in the <i>:TestCase</i> class. Subclasses of this class are used to map tests to the test types described above. The axioms below describe the relationships between the test types and the input ontology requirements of each test type.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( Class( :TestCase ) )
Declaration( Class( :ProfileIdentificationTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :SyntaxTranslationTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :ConsistencyTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :InconsistencyTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :PositiveEntailmentTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :NegativeEntailmentTest ) )
SubClassOf( :ProfileIdentificationTest :TestCase )
SubClassOf( :SyntaxTranslationTest :TestCase )
SubClassOf( :ConsistencyTest :ProfileIdentificationTest )
SubClassOf( :InconsistencyTest :ProfileIdentificationTest )
SubClassOf( :PositiveEntailmentTest :ConsistencyTest )
SubClassOf( :NegativeEntailmentTest :ConsistencyTest )
SubClassOf( :ConsistencyTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :premiseOntology ) )
SubClassOf( :InconsistencyTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :premiseOntology ) )
SubClassOf( :PositiveEntailmentTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :conclusionOntology ) )
SubClassOf( :NegativeEntailmentTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :nonConclusionOntology ) )
DisjointClasses( :ConsistencyTest :InconsistencyTest )
</pre>
<p>Note that the cardinality restrictions only specify minimal cardinalities. In practice, semantic tests will indeed have only one premise, conclusion, or non-conclusion, but for convenience each of those may be provided in multiple syntactic forms. This is the reason why the above assertions do not require exact cardinalities.
</p>
<a name="Normative_Syntax"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.3 Normative Syntax </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:normativeSyntax</i> object property associates a test case with individuals indicating one or more syntactic forms which are normative for all input ontologies associated with this test case. For convenience, test cases may still provide redundant input ontologies using additional syntactic forms which are not normative. Most types of tests usually provide exactly one normative form. <a href="#Syntax_Translation_Tests" title="">Syntax translation tests</a> may provide multiple normative syntactic forms.
</p><p>The property <i>:normativeSyntax</i> may take an instance of the <i>:Syntax</i> class as a value. The following mutually different individuals are members of the <i>:Syntax</i> class:
</p>
<ul><li> The individual <i>:FUNCTIONAL</i> indicates that all functional-style syntax input ontologies associated with the test case are normative.
</li><li> The individual <i>:OWLXML</i> indicates that all OWL 2 XML syntax input ontologies associated with the test case are normative.
</li><li> The individual <i>:RDFXML</i> indicates that all RDF/XML syntax input ontologies associated with the test case are normative.
</li></ul>
<pre> Declaration( Class( :Syntax ) )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :RDFXML )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :FUNCTIONAL )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :OWLXML )
DifferentIndividuals( :RDFXML :FUNCTIONAL :OWLXML )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :normativeSyntax ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :normativeSyntax :Syntax )
SubClassOf( :TestCase ObjectMinCardinality( 1 :normativeSyntax ) )
</pre>
<a name="Applicable_Semantics"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.4 Applicable Semantics </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:semantics</i> object property indicates to which kind of OWL 2 semantics a semantic test case is applicable. The property can take the following mutually distinct individuals as possible values:
</p>
<ul><li> The individual <i>:RDF-BASED</i> indicates that the test is applicable if the RDF-Based Semantics are used [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>].
</li><li> The individual <i>:DIRECT</i> indicates that the test is applicable if the Direct Semantics are used [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>].
</li></ul>
<p>Each test should have one property assertion for each of the possible semantics: either a positive property assertion to confirm that the tests is applicable under this semantics, or a negative property assertion indicating it is not.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :semantics ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :DIRECT :RDF-BASED )
ObjectPropertyRange( :semantics ObjectOneOf( :DIRECT :RDF-BASED ) )
</pre>
<p>If a test case is not applicable under one of the two semantics, then it is required that another test case is provided to highlight and illustrate the semantic difference (e.g. an entailment in the RDF-Based Semantics might be a non-entailment in the Direct Semantics). The symmetric property <i>:alternativeSemanticsTest</i> is used to associate two test cases that are complementary in this sense.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest ) )
FunctionalObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest )
SymmetricObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest )
SubClassOf(
ObjectIntersectionOf( :TestCase ObjectComplementOf( ObjectHasValue( :semantics :RDF-BASED ) ) )
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :alternativeSemanticsTest ObjectHasValue( :semantics :RDF-BASED ) )
)
SubClassOf(
ObjectIntersectionOf( :TestCase ObjectComplementOf( ObjectHasValue( :semantics :DIRECT ) ) )
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :alternativeSemanticsTest ObjectHasValue( :semantics :DIRECT ) )
)
</pre>
<a name="Species"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.5 Species </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:species</i> property describes the <a href="#Syntactic_Conformance" title="">syntactic conformance</a> of the input ontology documents with respect to OWL 2 Full ontology documents and OWL 2 DL ontology documents. The property may take either of the following two mutually distinct individuals as values:
</p>
<ul><li> The individual <i>:FULL</i> indicates that all input ontologies are OWL 2 Full ontology documents. This should be the case for all tests.
</li><li> The individual <i>:DL</i> indicates that all input ontologies are OWL 2 DL ontology documents.
</li></ul>
<p>Each test should either have a property assertion indicating the input ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology, or a negative property assertion indicating that it is not.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :species ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :species ObjectOneOf( :DL :FULL ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :DL :FULL )
SubClassOf( :TestCase ObjectHasValue( :species :FULL ) )
</pre>
<a name="Profiles"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.6 Profiles </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:profile</i> object property describes the <a href="#Syntactic_Conformance" title="">syntactic conformance</a> of the input ontology with respect to the profiles of OWL 2. It may take one of the following mutually different individuals as values:
</p>
<ul><li> The individual <i>:EL</i> indicates that all input ontologies are OWL 2 EL ontology documents.
</li><li> The individual <i>:QL</i> indicates that all input ontologies are OWL 2 QL ontology documents.
</li><li> The individual <i>:RL</i> indicates that all input ontologies are OWL 2 RL ontology documents.
</li></ul>
<p>Each test should have one property assertion for each of the profiles: either a positive property assertion to confirm that the test conforms to the restrictions of the profile, or a negative property assertion indicating it does not.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :profile ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :profile ObjectOneOf( :EL :QL :RL ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :EL :QL :RL )
</pre>
<p>The following axiom reflects the fact that if an ontology conforms to the restrictions of OWL 2 EL, OWL 2 QL, or OWL 2 RL it also conforms to the restrictions of OWL 2 DL.
</p>
<pre> SubClassOf(
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :profile ObjectOneOf( :EL :QL :RL ) )
ObjectHasValue( :species :DL )
)
</pre>
<a name="Imported_Ontologies"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.7 Imported Ontologies </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:importedOntology</i> property associates a test case with an individual that describes an auxiliary ontology which is required to resolve import directives, as explained in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Imports" title="Syntax">Section 3.4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]. The fact that import directives refer to <i>ontology locations</i> conflicts with the goal of maintaining test cases in single, location-independent files. Indeed, all contributed test cases would have to ensure imported ontologies to be available in the specified locations, and web access would be required to execute such tests.
</p><p>Thus imported ontologies will be made available under the according URLs for all approved test cases (see <a href="#Test_Case_Repositories" title="">Test Case Repositories</a>). For contributed test cases, this may not be guaranteed, and it is generally desirable to execute all tests off-line based on a single manifest file. Test cases therefore also provide copies of the contents of all imported ontologies as part of their data, so that tools may use a simple location redirection mechanism as described in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontology_Documents" title="Syntax">Section 3.2 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification</a> [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>] when executing test cases.
</p><p>Each imported ontology is represented by an auxiliary individual with multiple property values:
</p>
<ul><li> one value for the object property <i>:importedOntologyIRI</i>, specifying the location that the ontology should be in,
</li><li> one or more values for the properties <i>:fsInputOntology</i>, <i>:owlXMLInputOntology</i>, or <i>:rdfXMLInputOntology</i>, specifying the contents of the ontology, possibly in different syntactic forms, and
</li><li> one or more values for the property <i>:normativeSyntax</i> to define which of the given syntactic forms is to be considered normative.
</li></ul>
<p>Tools that execute tests off-line can simulate imports by assuming that a document containing any of the provided normative-syntax input ontologies is located at the given IRI.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :importedOntology ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :importedOntologyIRI ) )
SubClassOf(
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( ObjectInverseOf(:importedOntology) :TestCase )
ObjectIntersectionOf(
ObjectExactCardinality( 1 :importedOntologyIRI )
DataMinCardinality( 1 :inputOntology )
ObjectMinCardinality( 1 :normativeSyntax )
)
)
</pre>
<a name="Status"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.8 Status </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:status</i> object property specifies the status of a test case according to the <a href="#Approval_Process_Overview" title="">test case approval process</a>. The status might thus be PROPOSED, APPROVED, REJECTED, or EXTRACREDIT.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :status ) )
FunctionalObjectProperty( :status )
ObjectPropertyRange( :status ObjectOneOf( :Proposed :Approved :Rejected :Extracredit ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :Proposed :Approved :Rejected :Extracredit )
</pre>
<a name="Identifier"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.9 Identifier </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:identifier</i> data property should be used to associate a unique identifier with a test case.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( DataProperty( :identifier ) )
</pre>
<a name="Creator"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.10 Creator </span></h4>
<p>A test can be related to a literal description (name) of its author using the <i>:creator</i> data property. A test can have multiple creators.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( DataProperty( :creator ) )
</pre>
<a name="Description"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.11 Description </span></h4>
<p>A literal containing a human-readable description can associated with a test using <i>:description</i> data property.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( DataProperty( :description ) )
</pre>
<a name="Specification_Reference"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.12 Specification Reference </span></h4>
<p>Tests that are specifically related to a particular (part of an) OWL 2 specification document may indicate this using the <i>:specRef</i> object property. The value of this property is the URL (possibly with section reference) of the referred specification.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :specRef ) )
</pre>
<p>Note that this property is only provided to specify concrete URL references. To describe the relationship of some test to the specification more verbosely, the <a href="#Description" title="">description</a> can be used.
</p>
<a name="Issue_Reference"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.13 Issue Reference </span></h4>
<p>The <i>:issue</i> object property can be used to associate a test with a specific WG issue. The value of this property is the URL of the according page in the Working Group's issue tracker.
</p>
<pre> Declaration( ObjectProperty( :issue ) )
</pre>
<a name="Complete_Test_Ontology"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.2.14 Complete Test Ontology </span></h4>
<pre>Prefix( : = <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/testOntology#> )
Prefix( xsd: = <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> )
Prefix( rdfs: = <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> )
Ontology(<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/testOntology>
Annotation( rdfs:label "The OWL 2 Test Ontology" )
Annotation( rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-test/> )
Declaration( Class( :TestCase ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :identifier ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :description ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :creator ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :specRef ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :issue ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :inputOntology ) )
DataPropertyRange( :inputOntology xsd:string )
Declaration( DataProperty( :premiseOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :conclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :nonConclusionOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :premiseOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :conclusionOntology :inputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :nonConclusionOntology :inputOntology )
Declaration( Class( :ProfileIdentificationTest ) )
SubClassOf( :ProfileIdentificationTest :TestCase )
SubClassOf( :ProfileIdentificationTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :inputOntology ) )
Declaration( Class( :SyntaxTranslationTest ) )
SubClassOf( :SyntaxTranslationTest :TestCase )
Declaration( Class( :ConsistencyTest ) )
Declaration( Class( :InconsistencyTest ) )
SubClassOf( :ConsistencyTest :ProfileIdentificationTest )
SubClassOf( :InconsistencyTest :ProfileIdentificationTest )
SubClassOf( :ConsistencyTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :premiseOntology ) )
SubClassOf( :InconsistencyTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :premiseOntology ) )
DisjointClasses( :ConsistencyTest :InconsistencyTest )
Declaration( Class( :PositiveEntailmentTest ) )
SubClassOf( :PositiveEntailmentTest :ConsistencyTest )
SubClassOf( :PositiveEntailmentTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :conclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( Class( :NegativeEntailmentTest ) )
SubClassOf( :NegativeEntailmentTest :ConsistencyTest )
SubClassOf( :NegativeEntailmentTest DataMinCardinality( 1 :nonConclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :status ) )
FunctionalObjectProperty( :status )
ObjectPropertyRange( :status ObjectOneOf( :Proposed :Approved :Rejected :Extracredit ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :Proposed :Approved :Rejected :Extracredit )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :species ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :species ObjectOneOf( :DL :FULL ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :DL :FULL )
SubClassOf( ObjectHasValue( :species :DL ) ObjectHasValue( :species :FULL ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :profile ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :profile ObjectOneOf( :EL :QL :RL ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :EL :QL :RL )
SubClassOf(
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :profile ObjectOneOf( :EL :QL :RL ) )
ObjectHasValue( :species :DL )
)
Declaration( Class( :Syntax ) )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :RDFXML )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :FUNCTIONAL )
ClassAssertion( :Syntax :OWLXML )
DifferentIndividuals( :RDFXML :FUNCTIONAL :OWLXML )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :normativeSyntax ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :normativeSyntax :Syntax )
SubClassOf( :TestCase ObjectMinCardinality( 1 :normativeSyntax ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :semantics ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest ) )
ObjectPropertyRange( :semantics ObjectOneOf( :DIRECT :RDF-BASED ) )
DifferentIndividuals( :DIRECT :RDF-BASED )
FunctionalObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest )
SymmetricObjectProperty( :alternativeSemanticsTest )
SubClassOf(
ObjectIntersectionOf( :TestCase ObjectComplementOf( ObjectHasValue( :semantics :RDF-BASED ) ) )
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :alternativeSemanticsTest ObjectHasValue( :semantics :RDF-BASED ) )
)
SubClassOf(
ObjectIntersectionOf( :TestCase ObjectComplementOf( ObjectHasValue( :semantics :DIRECT ) ) )
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( :alternativeSemanticsTest ObjectHasValue( :semantics :DIRECT ) )
)
Declaration( DataProperty( :fsInputOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsInputOntology :inputOntology )
Declaration( DataProperty( :owlXmlInputOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlInputOntology :inputOntology )
Declaration( DataProperty( :rdfXmlInputOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlInputOntology :inputOntology )
DisjointDataProperties( :fsInputOntology :owlXmlInputOntology :rdfXmlInputOntology )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :importedOntology ) )
Declaration( ObjectProperty( :importedOntologyIRI ) )
SubClassOf(
ObjectSomeValuesFrom( ObjectInverseOf(:importedOntology) :TestCase )
ObjectIntersectionOf(
ObjectExactCardinality( 1 :importedOntologyIRI )
DataMinCardinality( 1 :inputOntology )
ObjectMinCardinality( 1 :normativeSyntax )
)
)
Declaration( DataProperty( :fsPremiseOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :fsConclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :fsNonConclusionOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsPremiseOntology :premiseOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsPremiseOntology :fsInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsConclusionOntology :conclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsConclusionOntology :fsInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsNonConclusionOntology :nonConclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :fsNonConclusionOntology :fsInputOntology )
Declaration( DataProperty( :owlXmlPremiseOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :owlXmlConclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :owlXmlNonConclusionOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlPremiseOntology :premiseOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlPremiseOntology :owlXmlInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlConclusionOntology :conclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlConclusionOntology :owlXmlInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlNonConclusionOntology :nonConclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :owlXmlNonConclusionOntology :owlXmlInputOntology )
Declaration( DataProperty( :rdfXmlPremiseOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :rdfXmlConclusionOntology ) )
Declaration( DataProperty( :rdfXmlNonConclusionOntology ) )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlPremiseOntology :premiseOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlPremiseOntology :rdfXmlInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlConclusionOntology :conclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlConclusionOntology :rdfXmlInputOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlNonConclusionOntology :nonConclusionOntology )
SubDataPropertyOf( :rdfXmlNonConclusionOntology :rdfXmlInputOntology )
)
</pre>
<a name="Test_Case_Repositories"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">3.3 Test Case Repositories </span></h3>
<p>A set of approved test cases is provided in the OWL 2 Test Case Repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcrepo" title="">OWL 2 Test Cases</a></cite>]. These test cases have been collected based on the approval process described below, and are expected to remain static after the Working Group has finished.
</p><p>Like any test set, the approved OWL 2 tests are necessarily incomplete in that they cannot cover all relevant situations or possible implementation challenges. For this reason, an additional public test repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcpubrepo" title="">Contributed Test Cases</a></cite>] is provided as a platform for collecting further test cases even after the termination of the Working Group. Since the Working Group does not control the approval process for those additional test cases, they may not be subjected to extensive review and may result in erroneous or misleading information. It is hoped that the additional repository will provide a valuable tool for the development of OWL after the finalization of the recommendation.
</p>
<a name="Approval_Process_Overview"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">3.4 Approval Process Overview </span></h3>
<p>This section outlines the process by means of which test cases have been selected for inclusion into the OWL 2 Test Case Repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcrepo" title="">OWL 2 Test Cases</a></cite>].
</p>
<ul><li> At the chairs' discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put to the Working Group in the weekly telecon or at a face-to-face meeting.
</li></ul>
<ul><li> The Working Group may approve, reject, or defer decision on a test.
<ul><li> If the Working Group approves a test, its status is changed to APPROVED. All approved and only approved tests are included in the test case repository [<cite><a href="#ref-tcrepo" title="">OWL 2 Test Cases</a></cite>]. The working group may decide to approve some tests as EXTRACREDIT, indicating that implementors are not expected to implement the required functionality. Further details are found below.
</li><li> If the Working Group rejects a test, its status is changed to REJECTED.
</li><li> If the Working Group defers decision on a test, its status remains PROPOSED.
</li></ul>
</li><li> At the chairs' discretion, the Working Group may review any previous decision regarding any test cases.
</li></ul>
<p>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.
</p><p><b>Extra credit tests</b> are approved test cases of status EXTRACREDIT. These tests have been found to be particularly hard to implement efficiently. Many extra credit tests are rather testing the performance of an implementation than highlighting a particular semantic interaction of OWL constructs. The name indicates that there is no expectation that any implementation will successfully run such tests and any that do gain extra credit.
</p>
<a name="Changes_From_WebOnt_Tests"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">3.5 Changes From WebOnt Tests </span></h3>
<p>This section provides an overview of the differences of the OWL 2 test cases format and collection as compared to the test cases of the first OWL specification as developed by the WebOnt working group [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-1-test-cases" title="">OWL 1 Test Cases</a></cite>].
</p>
<a name="Formatting_Changes"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.5.1 Formatting Changes </span></h4>
<p>As explained above, changes of the test case format are motivated by the desire to supply test cases within single stand-alone documents that meet the syntactic conformance criteria of OWL 2 DL. In order to avoid confusion with the earlier test case format, all elements of the ontology use new IRIs based on a dedicated namespace. Many properties still reflect the general structure of test cases, as outlined in [<cite><a href="#ref-w3c-tests" title="">Test Metadata</a></cite>], and are applied in the same sense. In addition, some new ontology elements were introduced to account for aspects that are specific to OWL 2 (e.g. the <i>:profile</i> property).
</p><p>Besides the change in vocabulary, the main structural change compared to WebOnt test cases is the embedding of all relevant data in single files, instead of using separate files for each involved ontology.
</p>
<a name="Changes_to_Test_Types"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.5.2 Changes to Test Types </span></h4>
<p>"Profile Identification Tests" and "Syntax Translation Tests" did not exist in the WebOnt test suite.
</p><p>"Tests for Incorrect Use of OWL Namespace" has been removed as a type. These tests were intended to highlight differences between the OWL RDF vocabulary and the DAML+OIL vocabulary. Time has reduced the motivation for such tests.
</p><p>"True Tests", "OWL for OWL Tests", and "Import Entailment Tests" have been removed as types. These types were each specializations of entailment tests. To the extent that they are present in the current test suite, these tests are marked as positive entailment tests.
</p><p>"Import Level Tests" has been removed as a type. This type is now included in the "Profile Identification Tests".
</p>
<a name="Changes_to_Process"></a><h4> <span class="mw-headline">3.5.3 Changes to Process </span></h4>
<p>Status of each test no longer includes "OBSOLETED".
</p>
<a name="Appendix:_An_Inconsistent_Ontology"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">4 Appendix: An Inconsistent Ontology </span></h2>
<p><a href="#Consistency_Tests" title="">Consistency tests</a> and <a href="#Inconsistency_Tests" title="">inconsistency tests</a> can be considered as entailment tests and non-entailment tests, respectively, by checking the entailment of an (arbitrary) inconsistent ontology. This appendix provides an ontology document <i>d<sub>in</sub></i> in the functional-style syntax that can be used for this purpose and that is compatible with all profiles. The corresponding ontology <i>O<sub>in</sub>=Ont(d<sub>in</sub>)</i> (see <a href="#Tool_Conformance" title="">Section 2.3</a>) is inconsistent with respect to both the Direct Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-direct-semantics" title="">OWL 2 Direct Semantics</a></cite>] and the RDF-Based Semantics [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics" title="">OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics</a></cite>]).
</p>
<pre>Namespace( owl = <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> )
Ontology(<http://example.com/inconsistentOntology>
SubClassOf( owl:Thing owl:Nothing )
)
</pre>
<div id="changelog">
<a name="Appendix:_Change_Log_.28Informative.29"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">5 Appendix: Change Log (Informative) </span></h2>
<a name="Changes_Since_Proposed_Recommendation"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">5.1 Changes Since Proposed Recommendation </span></h3>
<p>This section summarizes the changes to this document since the <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-conformance-20090922/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-conformance-20090922/">Proposed Recommendation of 22 September, 2009</a>.
</p>
<ul><li> Some minor editorial changes were made.
</li></ul>
<a name="Changes_Since_Candidate_Recommendation"></a><h3> <span class="mw-headline">5.2 Changes Since Candidate Recommendation </span></h3>
<p>This section summarizes the changes to this document since the <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-conformance-20090611/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-conformance-20090611/">Candidate Recommendation of 11 June, 2009</a>.
</p>
<ul><li> Some conformance conditions relating to the OWL 2 datatype map were removed from <a href="#Document_Conformance" title="Conformance">Section 2.1</a> as the strengthening of the definition in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>] rendered them redundant.
</li><li> In <a href="#Tool_Conformance" title="Conformance">Section 2.2</a> datatype maps are no longer mentioned as the strengthening of the definition of the OWL 2 datatype map (in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite><a href="#ref-owl-2-specification" title="">OWL 2 Specification</a></cite>]) renders this redundant.
</li><li> The role of "Extra Credit" test cases was clarified.
</li><li> <a href="#XML_Schema_Datatypes" title="Conformance">Section 2.3</a> was added to explain the dependency on XML Schema Datatypes.
</li><li> Some minor editorial changes were made.
</li></ul>
</div>
<a name="Acknowledgments"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">6 Acknowledgments </span></h2>
<p>The starting point for the development of OWL 2 was the <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/10/" title="http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/10/">OWL1.1 member submission</a>, itself a result of user and developer feedback, and in particular of information gathered during the <a class="external text" href="http://www.webont.org/owled/" title="http://www.webont.org/owled/">OWL Experiences and Directions (OWLED) Workshop series</a>. The working group also considered <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html" title="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html">postponed issues</a> from the <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/" title="http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/">WebOnt Working Group</a>.
</p><p>This document has been produced by the OWL Working Group (see below), and its contents reflect extensive discussions within the Working Group as a whole.
The editors extend special thanks to
Bernardo Cuenca Grau (Oxford University Computing Laboratory),
Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Bell Labs Research, Alcatel-Lucent),
Jonathan Rees (Science Commons),
Alan Ruttenberg (Science Commons) and
Michael Schneider (FZI)
for their thorough reviews.
</p><p>The regular attendees at meetings of the OWL Working Group at the time of publication of this document were:
Jie Bao (RPI),
Diego Calvanese (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano),
Bernardo Cuenca Grau (Oxford University Computing Laboratory),
Martin Dzbor (Open University),
Achille Fokoue (IBM Corporation),
Christine Golbreich (Université de Versailles St-Quentin and LIRMM),
Sandro Hawke (W3C/MIT),
Ivan Herman (W3C/ERCIM),
Rinke Hoekstra (University of Amsterdam),
Ian Horrocks (Oxford University Computing Laboratory),
Elisa Kendall (Sandpiper Software),
Markus Krötzsch (FZI),
Carsten Lutz (Universität Bremen),
Deborah L. McGuinness (RPI),
Boris Motik (Oxford University Computing Laboratory),
Jeff Pan (University of Aberdeen),
Bijan Parsia (University of Manchester),
Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Bell Labs Research, Alcatel-Lucent),
Sebastian Rudolph (FZI),
Alan Ruttenberg (Science Commons),
Uli Sattler (University of Manchester),
Michael Schneider (FZI),
Mike Smith (Clark & Parsia),
Evan Wallace (NIST),
Zhe Wu (Oracle Corporation), and
Antoine Zimmermann (DERI Galway).
We would also like to thank past members of the working group:
Jeremy Carroll,
Jim Hendler,
Vipul Kashyap.
</p>
<a name="References"></a><h2> <span class="mw-headline">7 References </span></h2>
<dl><dt> <span id="ref-tcpubrepo">[Contributed Test Cases]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://owl.semanticweb.org/page/OWL_2_Test_Cases" title="http://owl.semanticweb.org/page/OWL_2_Test_Cases">Public Test Case Repository</a></cite>.
</dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-specification">[OWL 2 Specification]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax</span></a></cite> Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Bijan Parsia, eds. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/</a>.</span></dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping">[OWL 2 RDF Mapping]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>Mapping to RDF Graphs</span></a></cite> Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Boris Motik, eds. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/</a>.</span></dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-direct-semantics">[OWL 2 Direct Semantics]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>Direct Semantics</span></a></cite> Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, eds. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/</a>.</span></dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics">[OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>RDF-Based Semantics</span></a></cite> Michael Schneider, editor. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/</a>.</span></dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-xml-serialization">[OWL 2 XML Serialization]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>XML Serialization</span></a></cite> Boris Motik, Bijan Parsia, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, eds. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/</a>.</span></dd><dt> <span id="ref-owl-2-profiles">[OWL 2 Profiles]</span>
</dt><dd><span><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/">OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: <span>Profiles</span></a></cite> Boris Motik, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Zhe Wu, Achille Fokoue, Carsten Lutz, eds. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/</a>. Latest version available at <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/</a>.</span></dd></dl>
<dl><dt> <span id="ref-tcrepo">[OWL 2 Test Cases]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/2009/owl-test-cases" title="http://www.w3.org/2009/owl-test-cases">OWL 2 Test Case Repository</a></cite>.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dt> <span id="ref-owl-1-test-cases">[OWL 1 Test Cases]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/">OWL Web Ontology Language: Test Cases</a></cite>. Jeremy J. Carroll, and Jos De Roo, eds. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/.
</dd><dt> <span id="ref-rdf-syntax">[RDF Syntax]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/">RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</a></cite>. Dave Beckett, ed. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/. Latest version available as http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.
</dd><dt> <span id="ref-rfc-2119">[RFC 2119]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt" title="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a></cite>. Network Working Group, S. Bradner. IETF, March 1997, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
</dd></dl>
<dl><dt> <span id="ref-w3c-tests">[Test Metadata]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/">Test Metadata</a></cite>. Patrick Curran and Karl Dubost, eds., W3C Working Group Note 14 September 2005, <a class="external free" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/</a>. Latest version available at <a class="external free" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/test-metadata/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/test-metadata/">http://www.w3.org/TR/test-metadata/</a>.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dt> <span id="ref-turtle">[Turtle]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/" title="http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/">Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language</a></cite>. David Beckett and Tim Berners-Lee. W3C Team Submission, 14 January 2008, http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/.
</dd><dt> <span id="ref-xml-schema-datatypes">[XML Schema Datatypes]</span>
</dt><dd> <cite><a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/">XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition</a></cite>. Paul V. Biron, and Ashok Malhotra, eds. W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/. Latest version available as http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/. This reference is to be considered a reference to <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/">XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes</a> upon its expected publication as a W3C Recommendation (see <a href="#XML_Schema_Datatypes" title="Conformance">Section 2.3</a> in OWL 2 Conformance). The (non-normative) version of the XSD 1.1 document available at publication time is the <a class="external text" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-2-20090430/" title="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-2-20090430/">30 April 2009 Candidate Recommendation</a>.
</dd></dl>
</body>
</html>