W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Test cases for approval

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:36:48 +0000
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <51C4BCC0-27CF-4E2B-9033-9EE23459BB36@deri.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On 1 Mar 2011, at 19:42, Birte Glimm wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> just looked quickly over those, manual inspection...
> 
> 
> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass:
> > :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials
> 
> looks ok to me.
> 
> > :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer
> 
> looks ok to me.
> 
> > :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same
> 
> looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be, potentially if you asked for
> "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?)
> 
> Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which also makes testing relatively difficult. 

The lists in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP or http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Symbol_Spaces (or intersection thereof) could be a start?

> As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-)

I would like this to be discussed at least once more, it seems there is use out there of datatypes - the fact that implementation do canonicalisation is IMO an indication that something should be done about datatypes at least. (We had some earlier discussion about a 
D$^-$-Entailment a while back, but I think just nobody had time to spend on it.

At least I would like to gather once more which implementation does *what* about Datatypes and see whether there's need to standardise that, before we decide to drop it alltogether... but, yes, it's a matter of time as well.  

Axel
> 
>  Birte
> 
> 
> didn't look into the bind0x tests yet...
> 
> Axel
> 
> > as the same literal without
> > :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> > :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >
> > The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data
> > is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology.  The test :plainLit is
> > applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics.
> > Birte
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> > Computing Laboratory
> > Parks Road
> > Oxford
> > OX1 3QD
> > United Kingdom
> > +44 (0)1865 283520
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 09:37:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT