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

Re: [RIF] test case conclusions

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:37:35 +0200
Message-ID: <490037CF.7040900@inf.unibz.it>
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
I'd say that conclusion should *never* be a document formulas, for two
reasons:
- BLD defines conformance only for entailment of condition formulas; not
document formulas
- things should be kept simple, i.e., all test cases should use the same
format, and many condition formulas (e.g., those containing quantifiers
and/or disjunction) cannot be expressed as document formulas

Best, Jos

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> In the existing set of tests, a few of  the conclusions need** to be
> condition formulas  (eg [1]),  none of them need to be document
> formulas, and by far most of them can be either. Do we want to have
> a style convention that says they should be conditions if they can,
> and documents only if they need to be (or the reverse)?  Or just leave
> it to the preference  of the submitter?
> 
> Stella
>  
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Negative_Guards_1
> 
> 
> **although, couldn't those that entail non-atomic conditions also be
>     be represented as:
>         premises:
>                  ....
>                  ...
>    
>               test:passed()  :-  Or (... )
> 
>      conclusion:
>             Document (
>                Group (
>                     test:passed()              
>                )
>             )
> 
>    (it's not as readable for a human, I think)

-- 
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 Thursday, 23 October 2008 08:37:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:57 GMT