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

Re: [RIF] changes to approved test cases?

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:17:07 -0400
Message-ID: <49087063.3050304@gmail.com>
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


That is fine.

Let's adopt the practice that any changes to a TC after approval will be 
recorded in a field "changes since WG approval" (or something like that) so we 
can methodically revisit any changes and ensure they are acceptable.

-Chris

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.
> 
> Stella
> 
> [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)
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 14:17:55 GMT

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