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

Re: RDF and OWL test cases

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:32:34 +0200
Message-ID: <48BB9A92.9010909@inf.unibz.it>
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I split up the test case.


Best, Jos

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> On this one [1],  is the And in the conclusion an essential part
> of the test, or a convenience to represent three separate
> things that are entailed by the ruleset&data?  If it's the latter,
> then having three tests each with one of the conjuncts as
> the conclusion, would make better tests, because if it
> fails they know more precisely what didn't work. (Though
> as it  is currently, it may be better as an illustration for a human
> reader since they can see all 3 at a glance --  so the choice depends
> on the main motivation for the tests).
> 
> Stella
> 
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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
> 

-- 
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 Monday, 1 September 2008 07:32:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:54 GMT