W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: RDF and OWL test cases

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:17:17 -0400
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE3508283.1637EFE3-ON852574B4.000C381F-852574B4.000C9127@us.ibm.com>
For the BLD+RDF and BLD+OWL tests, the dialect is given as BLD 
but  these tests are not applicable to all BLD consumers.
I think we will need to use additional values for the dialect  property,
or some other metadata so that implementations can determine which 
tests apply to them.

Stella





Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
08/27/2008 12:04 PM

To
RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RDF and OWL test cases






I added some test cases concerned with RDF and owl.  I improvised a
little when writing the RDF graphs.  Let me know if its okay.

RDF:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment


OWL DL:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_II

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 02:18:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:53 GMT