PRE-PUBLICATION DRAFT. This document is being prepared for possible publication by the W3C, but it may change, be delayed, or never be published. The "Version" URIs and "Status of this Document" section may reflect its planned location and status, not present reality.
This normative version is a compound document. Non-normative versions consisting of a single HTML file are available in three sizes: medium, large, and extra large. The tests of this document are also available in these non-normative formats: Zip archive of approved tests, the test Web site.
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.
This text not yet prepared. It will include a link to the list of changes since PR
owl:AllDifferent
owl:AnnotationProperty
owl:Class
owl:DatatypeProperty
owl:FunctionalProperty
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
owl:Nothing
owl:Ontology
owl:Restriction
owl:SymmetricProperty
owl:Thing
owl:TransitiveProperty
owl:allValuesFrom
owl:backwardCompatibleWith
owl:cardinality
owl:complementOf
owl:differentFrom
owl:disjointWith
owl:distinctMembers
owl:equivalentClass
owl:equivalentProperty
owl:imports
owl:intersectionOf
owl:inverseOf
owl:maxCardinality
owl:oneOf
owl:sameAs
owl:someValuesFrom
owl:unionOf
As part of the definition of the Web Ontology Language (OWL) the Web Ontology Working Group provides a set of test cases. This document presents those test cases. They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification of, the normative definition of OWL found in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] to which this document is subsidiary.
This document is one component of the description of OWL, the Web Ontology Language, being produced by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group. The Document Roadmap section of the [OWL Overview] describes each of the different parts and how they fit together.
This document describes the various types of test used
and the format in which the tests
are presented.
Alternative formats of the test collection are provided.
These are intended to be suitable
for use by OWL developers in test harnesses,
possibly as part of a test driven development process,
such as Extreme Programming [XP].
The format of the Manifest
files
used as part of these alternative formats is described.
In the non-normative appendices, this document also describes the process for creation and approval of these tests.
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:
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 Syntax]), and the supporting documentation.
The Web Ontology Working Group has seen adequate implementation experience of most of the tests in this document. Some, however, are particularly difficult to implement efficiently. These are labelled as extra credit tests. Such tests indicate the semantics of OWL, but may use features that are not sufficiently widely implemented to provide good interoperability.
A general case of extra credit tests is that all OWL Full nonentailments and consistency tests are extra credit tests. This is because typical OWL Full implementations prove entailments but cannot prove nonentailments.
Extra credit tests are labelled with "EC" within this document and with status EXTRACREDIT in the manifest files.
The name indicates that there is no expectation that any implementation will successfully run such tests and any that do gain extra credit.
Each test consists of one or more RDF/XML documents and a Manifest
file.
Tests of one document indicate some property of that document
when viewed as an OWL knowledge base.
Tests of two or more documents indicate a relationship between the two documents
when viewed as OWL knowledge bases.
The Manifest
file is named ManifestNNN.rdf
(The NNN
is replaced by the test number).
It contains metadata (in RDF) indicating the test type,
and describing the test.
The metadata also indicates the language levels appropriate for each test and each document in each test. For each RDF/XML document, one language level is indicated, being OWL Lite, OWL DL or OWL Full, as given by the syntactic rules in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. For semantic tests, one or two language levels are indicated. If the language level OWL Full is indicated for a semantic test, then the test holds according to the RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. If the language level OWL Lite or OWL DL is indicated for a semantic test, then the test holds according to the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]. If the language level OWL Lite is indicated for a semantic test, then the test only uses features within the OWL Lite sublanguage.
Some of the tests require that certain
datatypes are, or are not, supported in the
datatype map
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax].
These are indicated with the test.
Other datatypes which are used in the test
are also indicated: the test applies whether or not these are supported in the
datatype map .
The datatypes
xsd:integer
, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes]
are not indicated, even when used or required, since they
must be supported.
These tests use one document.
It is named badNNN.rdf
.
This document includes a use of the OWL namespace with a local name
that is not defined by the OWL recommendation. An OWL Syntax checker SHOULD
give a warning.
Note: These tests are intended to help migration from DAML+OIL [DAML+OIL], since the local names chosen are defined in the DAML+OIL namespace.
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf
,
the other is named conclusionsNNN.rdf
.
The conclusions
are
entailed by the premises
.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
These tests use two documents.
One is named premisesNNN.rdf
,
the other is named nonconclusionsNNN.rdf
.
The nonconclusions
are not
entailed
by the premises
.
Such entailment is defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax],
(see also
OWL Full entailment).
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 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 map 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 map 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:
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 map, [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]; for example, by listing them in its supporting documentation.
An OWL consistency checker MUST provide a means to determine the model theory [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], it uses (either the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics or the RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics); for example, in its supporting documentation.
An OWL
consistency checker MUST be sound:
it MUST
return Consistent
only when the
input document is consistent and Inconsistent
only when the input
document is not consistent, with respect to the datatype map of the checker.
If an input document uses datatypes that are not supported by the datatype map of an OWL consistency checker then it MAY report a warning.
An OWL consistency checker is
complete and terminating,
if, given sufficient (but
finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory)
and the absence of
network errors, it will always return
either Consistent
or Inconsistent
. It has
been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a
complete and terminating consistency checker
(the languages are decidable),
and that
for OWL full it is not possible to construct a complete and terminating
consistency
checker (the language is undecidable,
[Practical Reasoning]).
The
datatype map of
an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support at least
xsd:integer
, xsd:string
from [XML Schema Datatypes].
An OWL consistency checker SHOULD NOT return
Unknown
.
Unknown
, while sometimes needed, is not
a desired response.
Four different conformance classes of OWL consistency checker are defined.
An OWL Lite consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an OWL Lite document as input, and uses the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL DL consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an OWL DL document as input and uses the Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics.
An OWL Full consistency checker is an OWL consistency checker that takes an OWL Full document as input and uses the RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics.
The
datatype map of an
OWL Full consistency checker
MUST also support
rdf:XMLLiteral
from [RDF Concepts],
see [RDF Semantics].
A complete OWL Lite consistency checker is an OWL Lite consistency checker that is complete and terminating.
Note: An OWL Full consistency checker may indicate that an OWL DL document is inconsistent, while an OWL DL consistency checker indicates that the same document is consistent, (for example: compare test Thing-005 with Thing-004 or compare AnnotationProperty-001 with AnnotationProperty-002). Every OWL DL consistency checker is also an OWL Lite consistency checker.
Note:
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. This includes the extra credit tests.
An OWL consistency checker can be tested using appropriate consistency and inconsistency tests. Appropriate tests are those of an appropriate level and for which the checker has appropriate datatype support. The level of the test indicates the semantic theory being used, which may differ from the level of the file. For example, test Thing-004 contains an OWL DL file which is consistent as an OWL DL consistency test, but inconsistent as an OWL Full consistency test.
An OWL consistency checker has appropriate datatype support for a test if both:
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 above constraints also apply to
extra credit tests.
Consistency checkers that return the correct answer (i.e. not Unknown
)
gain the extra credit.
The Manifest
file follows the RDF schema developed
for the RDF Test Cases [RDF Tests].
This is augmented by a few new properties and types which are declared in the OWL Test Ontology, found at 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
otest:PositiveEntailmentTest
otest:NegativeEntailmentTest
otest:TrueTest
otest:OWLforOWLTest
otest:ConsistencyTest
otest:InconsistencyTest
otest:ImportEntailmentTest
otest:ImportLevelTest
Where otest
is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#
and rtest
is bound to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema#
.
The name of the original author of the test is shown using a
dc:creator
property, see [Dublin Core].
A description of the test is given (using XHTML markup [XHTML])
as the value of the rtest:description
property.
An issue, if any, from the OWL Issues list [OWL Issues], is
the value of a rtest:issue
property.
An appropriate language feature, from the OWL namespace, if any, is
the value of the otest:feature
property.
The input documents with the test data are found as the value of
the rtest:inputDocument
property or
as the value of both the
rtest:premiseDocument
and
the
rtest:conclusionDocument
.
The support files for import entailment tests, import level tests
and test imports-002 are found
as the values of otest:importedPremiseDocument
.
The conformance levels associated with both files and tests
are given with the otest:level
property.
The value for each document is one of
otest:Full
, otest:DL
,
otest:Lite
or otest:Other
.
Each test is explicitly associated with one or two levels.
If it is associated with otest:Lite
then it
is implicitly suitable for otest:DL
.
The datatypes used in the test are given with the
otest:usedDatatype
property or with one of its subproperties:
otest:supportedDatatype
or otest:notSupportedDatatype
.
These
indicate that
the test is only valid when the datatype is supported or not supported respectively
by the
datatype map being used.
The rtest:status
of the test
reflects the process of
appendix A.
It
is given as one of the following levels:
Contents
owl:AllDifferent
owl:AnnotationProperty
owl:Class
owl:DatatypeProperty
owl:FunctionalProperty
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
owl:Nothing
owl:Ontology
owl:Restriction
owl:SymmetricProperty
owl:Thing
owl:TransitiveProperty
owl:allValuesFrom
owl:backwardCompatibleWith
owl:cardinality
owl:complementOf
owl:differentFrom
owl:disjointWith
owl:distinctMembers
owl:equivalentClass
owl:equivalentProperty
owl:imports
owl:intersectionOf
owl:inverseOf
owl:maxCardinality
owl:oneOf
owl:sameAs
owl:someValuesFrom
owl:unionOf
Contents
These tests are ones that are either known from the literature (for instance, from [Heinsohn et al.]), or from test suites contributed by Network Inference, or developed by the Working Group.
The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section:
oiled
http://oiled.man.example.net/test#
In the N3 syntax [N3] used for namespace declarations, this as as follows:
Namespaces: |
@prefix oiled: <http://oiled.man.example.net/test#> . |
Contents
Contents
Contents
Contents
These tests are ones that do not fit any other category. Some are taken from the [OWL Guide]; others reflect various aspects of OWL, that were not formal issues addressed by the Working Group.
Contents
Contents
There is no expectation that any implementation will successfully run the tests in this section; any that do gain extra credit.
The intent is to illustrate the semantics of OWL, particularly OWL Full, as specified by [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], with the specific goal of showing that it is possible to say things that it is not reasonable to expect an implementation to completely understand.
Contents
This appendix describes the process that was used during the development of this test suite.
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:
"PROPOSED"
.At the chair's discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put to the Working Group in the weekly telecon or at a face-to-face meeting.
Tests are approved by Working Group decision, with status 'APPROVED' or 'EXTRACREDIT'.
The Working Group may take account of favorable review of the tests and/or implementation reports, as well as other factors.
If the Working Group approves a test, then it is included in the test case document.
The Working Group may reject a test, in which case its status is
changed to "REJECTED"
. This does not indicate that the
converse of the test has been accepted. There may be stylistic
or other grounds for rejecting technically correct tests.
The Working Group has complete discretion to approve or reject tests independent of their conformance with this process or their conformance with the OWL Working Drafts.
In the light of new information, and at the chairs' discretion, the Working Group
may review any previous decision regarding any test cases. The status of
"OBSOLETED"
may be used where a test has ceased to be appropriate.
The editors may make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests. This includes:
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 Syntax] are not used:
xml:base
Test and manifest files should have an xml:base
attribute
[XMLBASE]
on
the document element. This should show the preferred URL
of the document, from which it is actually retrievable.
Files that contain no relative URIs may omit the xml:base
attribute.
Test and manifest files should use the ".rdf"
suffix. URIs should not. The URL used for xml:base
declarations
does not have a suffix.
example
Domains
All URLs in the test and manifest files should be retrievable Web resources
except for those that use domain names with "example"
as the penultimate
component (e.g. "http://www.example.org/ontology#prop"
).
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 1.74 2004/01/30 16:35:54 sandro Exp $ -->
The description should:
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 Tests]. The following additional conventions are used:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/
.The following namespace prefixes are used throughout:
rdf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
owl
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
xsd
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
first
#
. The 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 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.
Contents
Jeremy Carroll thanks Oreste Signore, his host at the W3C Office in Italy and Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo", part of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, where Jeremy is a visiting researcher.
The following people have contributed tests to this document: Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Jeff Heflin, Dan Connolly, the Guide editors, Jonathan Borden, Charles White, Martin Dürst, Masayasu Ishikawa, Jim Hendler, Herman ter Horst, Dave Reynolds, and the editors.
Ian Horrocks contributed to the conformance section of this document.
Sandro Hawke created the tests results page, that has been a great help during the Candidate Recommendation phase.
We thank those who gave test reports and other feedback during the Candidate Recommendation: Ken Baclawski, Sean Bechhofer, Ian Dickinson, Michael Grove, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, Minsu Jang, Gary Ng, Mehrdad Omidvari, Bijan Parsia, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Dave Reynolds, Rob Shearer, Evren Sirin, Charles White and Youyong Zou. We also thank the many others who helped develop the systems which produced these reports.
This document is the result of extensive discussions within the Web Ontology Working Group as a whole. The partipants in this Working Group included: Yasser alSafadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Stephen Buswell, Jeremy Carroll, Dan Connolly, Peter Crowther, Jonathan Dale, Jos De Roo, David De Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jérôme Euzenat, Tim Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Sandro Hawke, Patrick Hayes, Jeff Heflin, Ziv Hellman, James Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian Horrocks, Jane Hunter, Rüdiger Klein, Natasha Kravtsova, Ora Lassila, Deborah McGuinness, Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Mehrdad Omidvari, Martin Pike, Marwan Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Noboru Shimizu, Michael K. Smith, John Stanton, Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman ter Horst, David Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Bernard Vatant, Raphael Volz, Evan Wallace, Christopher Welty, Charles White, Frederik Brysse, Francesco Iannuzzelli, Massimo Marchiori, Michael Sintek and John Yanosy.
This section gives the changes between this document and the OWL Test Cases Proposed Recommendation.
The term datatype map is used instead of the term datatype theory, for consistency with the OWL and RDF Semantics. This occurred a number of times, including in the descriptions of tests miscellaneous-204, miscellaneous-205 and I5.8-012. The last of these consequentially required other minor rephrasing.
Updated references to RDF and OWL documents.
Added a paragraph near end of section 4.2.2, clarifying that a datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker, (being a datatype map from RDF Semantics) "MUST" contain an entry for rdf:XMLLiteral. This makes explicit a requirement that was already implicit in the PR document. Also clarified that the datatype map in the definition of an OWL Full consistent document is as defined in RDF Semantics, by changing the link.
Consequentially, made explicit reference to RDF Semantics (this reference was implicit in the OWL Test Proposed Recommendation).
Corrected an error in the metadata of test miscellaneous-205 which is not applicable for OWL Full, since rdf:XMLLiteral is a required datatype for OWL Full. This change is visible as the deletion of the word "Full" from the header of the test.
This error in the OWL Test Candidate and Proposed Recommendation appears to have been relatively benign:
challenge@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Found at
ftp://dimacs.rutgers.edu/pub/challenge/satisfiability/doc/satformat.tex
May 8, 1993.