W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: How to specify prefixes for test case conclusions

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:30:26 -0500
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Message-Id: <38CD0564-C7FB-4796-A512-5E2A8B6B6CD1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Right - i neglected to include that we also adopt some simple  
convention such as a positive entailment test is a rule like

PASSED() :- <conclusion>

Negative entailment tests are

FAILED() :- <conclusion>

-Chris (sent from my iPhone)

On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>  
wrote:

>
>
> Chris Welty wrote:
>>
>>
>> This fulfills ACTION-633.
>>
>> In test cases, we have the (very minor) problem of how to advise
>> implementors to treat the conclusion specifications - are they  
>> different
>> documents or the same document as the test case premise.  If they are
>
> They are not documents.  They are simply condition formulas.
>
>> the same document, then it is possible to reuse the namespace  
>> prefixes
>> from the premise and not re-declare them in the conclusion.  Also, if
>
> We can have this as a convention in the test case specification:
> CURIES in the conclusion are understood as full IRIs, expanded  
> according
> to the prefix definitions in the premise.
> Another possibility would be to have a number of prefix definitions on
> the test case level, which would be used to expand CURIES both in the
> premise and conclusion.
>
>> they are the same document then the "Local_Constant" test case [1]  
>> will
>> not work properly.
>
> I cannot see how this would work.  The BLD syntax does not have a  
> place
> for conclusions in documents.
>
> Best, Jos
>
>>
>> </chair>
>> I suggest we approve the convention that the conclusion is the same
>> document, and rewrite the local constant test case to use imports to
>> achieve its effect. This convention appears to have been adopted in  
>> most
>> test cases anyway.
>> <chair>
>>
>> I am extremely wary of any proposal to change BLD in order to address
>> what seems like a fairly simple problem.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Constant
>
> -- 
> 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 Friday, 30 January 2009 13:31:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT