- This version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-test-20030818/
- Latest version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
- Previous version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-test-20030528/
- Editors:
- Jeremy J. Carroll, HP
<jjc@hpl.hp.com>
-
Jos De Roo, AGFA,<jos.deroo@agfa.com>
This normative version is a compound document.
Non-normative versions consisting of a single HTML file are available
in three sizes:
medium,
large,
and extra large.
The tests of this document are also available in these non-normative formats:
Zip archive of approved tests, Zip archive of proposed tests, the test web site.
Copyright © 2003
W3C®
(MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability,
trademark,
document
use and
software
licensing rules apply.
This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
approved by the
Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage
of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal
meaning of its constructs. Other test cases
illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the working group.
Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.
Status of this document
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply
endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be
updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to cite this document as other than "work in
progress".
This draft is one of six
parts of the Candidate
Recommendation (CR) for OWL, the Web Ontology Language. It has
been developed by the Web
Ontology Working Group as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity (Activity Statement, Group Charter) for
publication on 18 August 2003.
The design of OWL expressed in earlier versions of these documents
has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical
requirements. The Working Group has addressed
all comments received, making changes as necessary. Changes to
this document since the Last Call
Working Draft are detailed in the change log.
The Working Group now hopes to gather experience from the growing
number of OWL
implementations in order to increase confidence in the language
and meet specific exit criteria.
This CR period will extend until at least . After
that date, when and if the exit criteria are met, the group intends to
request
Proposed Recommendation status.
Please send reports of implementation experience to public-webont-comments@w3.org
(archive).
Reports of any success or difficulty with the Test Cases
are encouraged, and reports received by 20 September 2003 will be
particularly helpful. General discussion of related technology is
welcome at www-rdf-logic@w3.org (archive).
Although OWL is essentially stable, later versions of these
documents are expected to contain minor improvements. The test site is likely to
include new, clarifying tests, even during this CR period.
Additionally, the design of OWL depends in part on the design of RDF,
and at this time the relevant RDF specifications are only Working
Drafts. It is therefore possible that unanticipated changes in RDF
may require changes to OWL.
Each test may be edited or have a change of status according
to the process specified
below. Further tests are being added and contributions are invited.
The approved tests in
this document have typically been successfully executed; the
proposed tests are also believed to be correct. An
editor's draft of this document is available
with the latest tests and up-to-date test status information.
This document is subsidiary to the normative
definition of the Web Ontology Language
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]).
One technical
detail concerning structure reuse in OWL
Semantics and Abstract Syntax, Section 4 (Mapping to RDF Graphs)
has been identified as "at
risk" and subject to change. We expect this change, if made, to
simplify rather than complicate implementations, and since it is a
relaxation of a current restriction, it will not invalidate or change
the meaning of any valid OWL or RDF documents.
The W3C maintains a list of any
patent disclosures related to this work.
As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
the Web Ontology Working Group provides a
set of test cases. This document
presents those test cases.
They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification
of, the normative definition of OWL
found in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
to which this document is subsidiary.
This document is one component of the description of OWL, the Web Ontology
Language, being produced by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group.
The Document Roadmap section
of the
[OWL Overview] describes each of the different parts
and how they fit together.
This document describes the various types of test used
and the format in which the tests
are presented.
Alternative formats of the test collection are provided.
These are intended to be suitable
for use by OWL developers in test harnesses,
possibly as part of a test driven development process,
such as Extreme Programming [XP].
The format of the Manifest files
used as part of these alternative formats is described.
This document describes the process for conflict
resolution and errata related to these tests.
In the non-normative appendices, this document also
describes the
process for creation and approval of these tests.
Further appendices show further proposed tests that are awaiting
resolution by the working group.
Various conformance levels are defined in this document
in terms
of
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
However, the test cases do not constitute a conformance test
suite for OWL,
since they are silent
on several important issues. This document cannot be considered a
complete specification of OWL.
The tests illustrate issue resolutions, and illustrate the use and meaning
of
the terms in the OWL namespace.
There are
other miscellaneous tests:
some
arising in the literature, and in preexisting systems;
others intending to show the difficulty of
complete implementations of OWL Full.
The deliverables included as part of the test cases are:
- The recommendation track document, which normatively includes the tests.
- Additional alternative forms of the normative tests. These are also
included in informative appendices to this document.
- A zip file including
- The RDF/XML files that participate in the
tests
- Manifest files indicating which tests should be applied to which
test files.
- The non-normative alternative forms of the test files.
This zip file is a non-normative alternative format.
-
A
Manifest
file describing all the tests.
- A
web-site
which includes the files in the zip file.
This also is a non-normative alternative format.
Note: Other files can be found
under the top URL of the web-site which are not part
of the deliverable.
Of the deliverables the only normative tests are
those included
in this document. All other deliverables
are informative. Moreover, the recommendation document is
informative except for the conformance statements, the
test data (specified in RDF/XML
[RDF/XML Syntax]), and the supporting documentation.
Each test consists of one or more RDF/XML documents and a Manifest
file.
Tests of one document indicate some property of that document
when viewed as an OWL knowledge base.
Tests of two or more documents indicate a relationship between the two documents
when viewed as OWL knowledge bases.
The Manifest
file is named ManifestNNN.rdf (The NNN
is replaced by the test number).
It contains metadata (in RDF) indicating the test type,
and describing the test.
The metadata also indicates
the language levels appropriate for each test and each document in each test.
For each RDF/XML document, one language level is indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full,
as given by the syntactic rules in
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
For semantic tests, one or two language levels are indicated.
If the language level OWL Full is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
If the language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a semantic test, then
the test holds according to the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
If the language level OWL Lite is indicated for a semantic test, then the test only uses
features within the OWL Lite sublanguage.
Some of the tests require that certain
datatypes are, or are not, supported in the
datatype theory
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
These are indicated with the test.
Other datatypes which are used in the test
are also indicated: the test applies whether or not these are supported in the
datatype theory .
The datatypes
xsd:integer, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes]
are not indicated, even when used or required, since they
must be supported.
These tests use one document.
It is named badNNN.rdf.
This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name
that is not defined by the OWL recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD
give a warning.
Note: These tests are intended to help migration
from DAML+OIL [DAML+OIL],
since the local names chosen are defined in the DAML+OIL namespace.
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
The conclusions are
entailed by the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
the other is named nonconclusionsNNN.rdf.
The nonconclusions are not
entailed
by the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
Exceptionally, test imports-002 includes a
third document.
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
The conclusions follow from the OWL semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
These tests are a special case of the entailment tests
in which the premises are empty.
These tests use one document.
It is named conclusionsNNN.rdf.
These are a special case of true tests.
The conclusions follow from the
OWL Full semantics
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
The tests are intended to illustrate how
OWL Full can be used to describe its own properties and
classes.
These tests use one document.
It is named consistentNNN.rdf.
The document is
consistent
as defined
by the OWL Semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full consistency).
These tests use one document.
It is named inconsistentNNN.rdf.
The document is not
consistent
as defined
by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full consistency).
These tests use more than two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf,
another is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, the rest have names
like supportNNN-A.rdf.
The support documents are in the
imports closure of the
premises document.
The conclusions are
entailed
by the
imports closure
of the premises.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
These tests use two documents.
One is named importsNNN.rdf,
the other is named mainNNN.rdf.
These
tests indicate the
interaction between owl:imports
and the sublanguage levels of the main document.
An OWL Full
document
is any
RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax].
An OWL DL
document is an OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL DL ontology in RDF
graph form.
An OWL Lite
document is an OWL Full document
such that the
imports closure
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
of the corresponding
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
is an
OWL Lite ontology in RDF
graph form.
An OWL Lite or
OWL DL document D
is
OWL DL consistent with respect to
a datatype theory
T if
and only if there is some
abstract OWL interpretation
I with respect
to T such that I
satisfies
an abstract ontology O
corresponding to D,
in which O has a
separated vocabulary;
(see
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]).
An
OWL Full document
D is
OWL Full consistent
with respect to a
datatype theory
T, if and only if there is some
OWL Full interpretation I with respect to T such that
I satisfies all
the RDF graphs in some
imports closed collection containing an RDF
graph corresponding to D.
This section uses the words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY as in [RFC 2119].
An OWL
syntax checker
takes a document as input, and returns one word being one of Lite,
DL, Full, Other.
The return value MUST conform with the following:
- Lite
- The input document is an OWL Lite document.
- DL
- The input document is an OWL DL document
but not an OWL Lite document.
- Full
- The input document is an OWL Full document
but not an OWL DL document.
- Other
- The input document is not an OWL Full document.
In addition, an OWL Syntax Checker SHOULD report a warning if
the
RDF graph
[RDF Concepts]
corresponding to the document
uses any URI references
starting with the prefix http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
except those found in the
[RDF Schema for OWL].
An OWL
syntax checker SHOULD report network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
An OWL consistency checker
takes a document as input, and returns one word being Consistent,
Inconsistent, or Unknown.
An OWL
consistency checker SHOULD report network errors occurring
during the computation of the imports closure.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST provide a means to determine
the datatypes
supported by its
datatype theory,
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]; for example, by listing them in its
supporting documentation.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST provide a means to determine
the model theory
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], it uses (either the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
or the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics);
for example, in its
supporting documentation.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST be sound:
it MUST
return Consistent only when the
input document is consistent and Inconsistent only when the input
document is not consistent, with respect to the datatype theory of the checker.
If an input
document uses datatypes that are not
supported by the datatype theory of
an OWL
consistency checker then it MAY report a warning.
An OWL consistency checker is
complete and terminating,
if, given sufficient (but
finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory)
and the absence of
network errors, it will always return
either Consistent or Inconsistent. It has
been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a
complete and terminating consistency checker
(the languages are decidable),
and that
for OWL full it is not possible to construct a complete and terminating
consistency
checker (the language is undecidable,
[Practical Reasoning]).
The
datatype theory of
an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support at least
xsd:integer, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes].
An OWL consistency checker SHOULD NOT return
Unknown.
Unknown, while sometimes needed, is not
a desired response.
Four different conformance classes of
OWL consistency checker are defined.
An OWL Lite consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Lite document as input, and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL DL consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL DL document as input and uses the
Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL Full consistency checker
is an OWL consistency checker that
takes an OWL Full document as input and uses the
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics.
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker
is an OWL Lite consistency checker that
is complete and terminating.
Note:
A
complete OWL Lite consistency checker
MAY return Unknown for an OWL Lite document in the case where
a resource limit has been exceeded.
Note:
The usage of the word 'complete' in this section
follows the conventions of the description logic community.
In some other communities the word 'complete'
is used in a weaker sense, refering to the
detection
of inconsistency by logical inference systems.
An OWL syntax checker
when presented with any of the test files
must return the indicated result.
An OWL consistency checker
can be tested using appropriate consistency
and inconsistency tests.
Appropriate tests are those
of an appropriate level and for which the checker has appropriate datatype support.
The level of the test indicates the semantic theory being used,
which may differ from the level of the file. For example, test Thing-001
contains an OWL Lite file which is consistent as an OWL Lite or OWL DL consistency test, but
inconsistent as an OWL Full consistency test.
An OWL consistency checker
has
appropriate datatype support
for a test if both:
- Its
datatype theory,
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]
supports all the datatypes that are required to be supported by the test.
-
If there are any datatypes that are required to be not supported by the test,
then they must not be supported by the
datatype theory of the checker (in some cases it may be sufficient
for only some of them to be not supported).
An OWL Lite consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Lite consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL DL consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
An OWL Full consistency checker
with
appropriate datatype support,
when presented with a file from
an OWL Full consistency test,
must return Consistent
or Unknown.
The corresponding inconsistency tests must return
Inconsistent or Unknown.
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker
should not return Unknown on the OWL Lite
consistency
or inconsistency tests, regardless of the use of
unsupported datatypes.
The Manifest file follows the RDF schema developed
for the RDF Test Cases [RDF Test Cases].
This is augmented by a few new properties and types
which are declared in the OWL Test Ontology, found
at http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology.
Specifically each test has its own Manifest file, and is identified from
the URI reference formed from the Manifest file's URL with a fragment test.
The test has one rdf:type explicit, and this is one of:
otest:NotOwlFeatureTest- A test for the incorrect use of the OWL namespace name.
otest:PositiveEntailmentTest- An entailment test.
otest:NegativeEntailmentTest- A non-entailment test.
otest:TrueTest- A true test.
otest:OWLforOWLTest- An OWL for OWL test.
otest:ConsistencyTest- A consistency test.
otest:InconsistencyTest- An inconsistency test.
otest:ImportEntailmentTest- An import entailment test.
otest:ImportLevelTest- An import level test.
Where otest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#
and rtest is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema#.
The name of the original author of the test is shown using a
dc:creator property, see [Dublin Core].
A description of the test is given (using XHTML markup [XHTML])
as the value of the rtest:description property.
An issue, if any, from the OWL Issues list [OWL Issues], is
the value of a rtest:issue property.
An appropriate language feature, from the OWL namespace, if any, is
the value of the otest:feature property.
The input documents with the test data are found as the value of
the rtest:inputDocument property or
as the value of both the
rtest:premiseDocument and
the
rtest:conclusionDocument.
The support files for import entailment tests, import level tests
and test imports-002 are found
as the values of otest:importedPremiseDocument.
The conformance levels associated with both files and tests
are given with the otest:level property.
The value for each document is one of
otest:Full, otest:DL,
otest:Lite or otest:Other.
Each test is explicitly associated with one or two levels.
If it is associated with otest:Lite then it
is implicitly suitable for otest:DL.
The datatypes used in the test are given with the
otest:usedDatatype property or with one of its subproperties:
otest:supportedDatatype or otest:notSupportedDatatype.
These
indicate that
the test is only valid when the datatype is supported or not supported respectively
by the
datatype theory being used.
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(for instance, from [Heinsohn et al.]),
or from test suites contributed by
Network Inference,
or developed by the Working Group.
The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:
oiledhttp://oiled.man.example.net/test#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
this as as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix oiled: <http://oiled.man.example.net/test#> .
|
These tests
are ones that do not fit any other category.
Some are taken from the [OWL Guide];
others reflect various aspects of OWL, that
were not formal issues addressed by the working group.
Tests are created by members of the working group.
An (optional)
test editor is provided to facilitate this.
Tests are then placed
in the appropriate directory in the
test web site.
This is done using CVS access to the W3C CVS server
[W3C CVS].
When created, tests are given a status of "PROPOSED".
The author of the test creates a Manifest file in the directory
of the new test, identifying:
- The creator of the test.
- The test type.
- A description of the test.
- The RDF/XML files used in the test.
- The status as
"PROPOSED".
- At least one of:
- An OWL feature that the test illustrates (by reference to the name of
some property or class in the OWL namespace).
- An issue that the test case is related to (by reference to the issue URI
as specified in the OWL issues list [OWL Issues]).
- Some other rationale for the test.
At the chair's discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put to the working group
in the weekly telecon or at a face-to-face meeting.
Tests are approved by working group decision.
The working group may take account of favourable review
of the tests and/or implementation reports, as well as other factors.
If the Working Group approves a test, then it is included in the test case document.
The Working Group may reject a test, in which case its status is
changed to "REJECTED". This does not indicate that the
converse of the test has been accepted. There may be stylistic
or other grounds for rejecting technically correct tests.
The Working Group has complete discretion to approve or reject tests
independent of their conformance with this process or their conformance
with the OWL working drafts.
In the light of new information, and at the chairs' discretion, the working group
may review any previous decision regarding any test cases. The status of
"OBSOLETED" may be used where a test has ceased to be appropriate.
The editors may
make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests.
This includes:
- Editorial changes to text in the test descriptions.
- Fixing of typos and trivial errors.
- Moving tests to conform with document naming conventions.
- Renaming and renumbering tests and test files.
- Substantive changes resulting from other working group decisions.
- Stylistic changes reflecting changes to the
preferences expressed in this document.
There is a preference for the following stylistic
rules.
None of these rules is obligatory, but test authors should be
minded that it will be easier to gain working group consensus
if they follow these rules.
Tests should normally be expressed in RDF/XML.
The following RDF/XML grammar rules [RDF/XML Syntax] are not used:
-
Property attributes.
-
rdf:parseType="Resource".
Test and manifest files should have an xml:base attribute
[XMLBASE]
on
the document element. This should show the preferred URL
of the document, from which it is actually retrievable.
Files that contain no relative URIs may omit the xml:base attribute.
Test and manifest files should use the ".rdf"
suffix. URIs should not. The URL used for xml:base declarations
does not have a suffix.
All URLs in the test and manifest files should be retrievable web resources
except for those that use domain names with "example" as the penultimate
component (e.g. "http://www.example.org/ontology#prop").
The following copyright statement should be included as an XML
comment in every test file:
<!--
Copyright World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and
Mathematics, Keio University).
All Rights Reserved.
Please see the full Copyright clause at
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html>
$Id: Overview.html,v 1.9 2003/08/19 15:40:12 sandro Exp $
-->
The description should:
- Link to relevant parts of of the OWL recommendations.
- Clearly distinguish syntactic and semantic concerns.
The description should be included as an XML comment
in each test file, and be included as RDF content in the Manifest file.
Tests that relate principally
to some owl property or class, should be put in a directory
named using the local name of that property of class.
Otherwise, tests that relate to an issue should be put in a directory
named like I3.4 where the issue number is taken from the OWL issue list
[OWL Issues].
Each directory should contain tests numbered consecutively from 001.
No two tests in a single directory should have the same number.
Each file in a test should have the number of the test at the end of its name, before the suffix.
The rest of the file name should follow the conventions for the test type.
Note:
the approved tests in a directory will not necessarily be contiguously numbered.
Note:
this differs from the RDF Core test case numbering conventions.
Both the approved and proposed tests
are shown both in RDF/XML, which is their normative
form, and in a triples format. This lists the triples
as subject, predicate and object, similar to the
N-triples format
described in [RDF Test Cases].
The following additional conventions are used:
-
Qnames
stand in for URI references.
- Relative URLs are permitted and are with respect to:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/.
- The triple quotes convention from Python
is sometimes used.
- No escaping of non-ASCII characters is required.
The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#xsdhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#first- The URL of the first file concatenated with
#. The first file
is that named premisesNNN.rdf, badNNN.rdf, consistentNNN.rdf, inconsistentNNN.rdf
or importsNNN.rdf depending
on the
test type. (Not used for true tests or
OWL for OWL tests
).
second- The URL of the second file concatenated with
#.
The second file is named conclusionsNNN.rdf, nonconclusionsNNN.rdf or mainNNN.rdf depending
on the
test type.
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
the first four appear as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
|
Other namespaces are explicitly listed with the test data.
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature
(for instance, from [Heinsohn et al.]),
or from test suites contributed by
Network Inference,
or developed by the Working Group.
The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:
oiledhttp://oiled.man.example.net/test#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations,
this as as follows:
| Namespaces: |
@prefix oiled: <http://oiled.man.example.net/test#> .
|
These tests
are ones that do not fit any other category.
Some are taken from the [OWL Guide];
others reflect various aspects of OWL, that
were not formal issues addressed by the working group.
There is no expectation that any implementation will successfully run
the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full,
as specified by
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things
that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely
understand.
Jeremy Carroll thanks Oreste Signore,
his host at
the W3C Office in Italy and
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione
"Alessandro Faedo", part of the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, where Jeremy is a
visiting researcher.
The following people have contributed tests to this document:
Sean Bechhofer,
Ian Horrocks,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
Jeff Heflin,
Jonathan Borden,
Guide editors,
Dan Connolly,
Charles White,
Martin Dürst, Masayasu Ishikawa,
Jim Hendler,
Herman ter Horst,
and the editors.
Ian Horrocks contributed to the conformance section of this document.
This document is the result of extensive discussions within the
Web Ontology Working Group
as a whole. The members of this group working group included:
Yasser al Safadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean
Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Frederik Brysse, Stephen Buswell, Peter
Crowther, Jos De Roo, David De Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman,
Jérôme Euzenat, Dieter Fensel, Tim Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Pat
Hayes, Jeff Heflin, Ziv Hellman, James Hendler,