Re: Possible incorrect test case (?)

It isn't obvious to me why this wouldn't be an entailment under the  
RDF-Based semantics -- at least not at this time of night. Can you  
explain?

Thanks,
Ian


On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:13, Mike Smith wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:11, Antoine
> Zimmermann<antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote:
>
>> I've browsed the test cases and observed a possible mistake in one  
>> of them.
>>
>> [ Test WebOnt-Restriction-005, Proposed (2009-06-08) [1]. ]
>
>> Now, unless I misinterpreted the RDF/XML syntax, I conclude that  
>> O1 entails
>> O2, but the test says "negative entailment".
>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> No, I believe you are correct.  In WebOnt, this was approved as a
> negative entailment OWL Full test.  I think that this is an entailment
> that holds under the OWL 2 Direct Semantics but does not hold under
> the RDF-Based semantics.
>
> There was a wg thread in Jan titled "The definition of entailment in
> the Direct Semantics document" that touched on this issue as well.
>
> Thanks for noticing this, I will split the test in two and update the
> meta-data accordingly.
> -- 
> Mike Smith
>
> Clark & Parsia
>
>> [1] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/ 
>> TestCase:WebOnt-Restriction-005
>