Re: RDF and OWL test cases

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> 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... ?

Yes, that would also work.  I don't really have a preference.

> (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

I don't think there will be any ambiguity; I don't see a reason not to
use the word "profile". In fact, we already use this word in BLD, so it
makes sense to use it in the test case templates as well.

Best, Jos

> 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
> 

-- 
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