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

Re: RDF and OWL test cases

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:56:23 -0400
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF8389D39D.6C58AB12-ON852574B7.007D73B3-852574B7.007E032C@us.ibm.com>
Those aren't really dialects though, are they?  ( I used that
 in my examples, but rethinking).  Also RDF, OWL, etc will 
potentially be combined in the future with other dialects so it
might be more efficient to have a separate property setting.
What about something like importProfile=xyz... ?
(profile, as in the second argument of a two argument Import)
meanig that this test requires the implementation to support
imported documents of that type. Using the word profile may
not be good, since it has a meaning in OWL? Whatever
we choose should be appropriate to cover the the case
where a RIF document of one dialect imports a RIF document
of a different dialect (as the BLD spec says it can).

Stella




Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> 
08/29/2008 04:03 AM

To
Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc

Subject
Re: RDF and OWL test cases






We can call the dialects RDF+BLD and RDF+OWL, in line with the names we
use for the categories.

Best, Jos

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> For the BLD+RDF and BLD+OWL tests, the dialect is given as BLD
> but  these tests are not applicable to all BLD consumers.
> I think we will need to use additional values for the dialect  property,
> or some other metadata so that implementations can determine which
> tests apply to them.
> 
> Stella
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 22:57:27 GMT

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