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

Re: [RIF] changes to approved test cases?

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:56:04 +0000
Message-ID: <49082524.7030703@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> Would it be ok to change the conclusions of the 5 approved tests cases 
> below to be condition formulas instead of document formulas?   That way, 
> all the approved and proposed test cases would have condition formulas 
> as conclusions.

Fine by me.
Dave

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM on 10/28/2008 08:58 PM -----
> *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 Wednesday, 29 October 2008 08:56:52 GMT

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