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

Re: [RIF] test case conclusions

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:53:08 -0400
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD8989872.6B908365-ON852574EB.0046AA2C-852574EB.0046C8AA@us.ibm.com>
I meant, reworded to also cover the condition formulas with no
variables in them.

Stella




Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
10/23/2008 08:43 AM

To
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: [RIF] test case conclusions







Oh, I see -  the BLD spec does define logical entailment 
of a document (as well as other) formula by a document 
formula, but for conformance it considers only entailment 
of closed condition formulas. 

The way the BLD conformance clause is currently written, it 
only defines conformance for existentially quantified condition 
formulas, so I think it needs to be reworded a little? 

Stella 



Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> 
10/23/2008 04:37 AM 


To
Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org 
Subject
Re: [RIF] test case conclusions








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 12:54:00 GMT

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