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

Action-848 (Review RDF Combination subclass test cases)

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:02:47 -0400
Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906111202o69486e9fh3642e898d063ba6c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public-Rif-Wg <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
These all look correct to me.

In [3] and [4] I don't understand the role of the subclass statement in the
premise (why it is needed in [4] for the conclusion to hold).

In [5] I think the import profile is intended to be Simple instead of RDFS
(to make the comparison with [6] more clear))?

For dialects:
   (noting that a test case conclusion is a condition)

    [1] [2] -  Core (and so also PRD and BLD)

    [3] [4] [6]  -  BLD

    [5] -  BLD and PRD, but not Core


 I made a small update to the text of the purpose field for [1] and [2] to
mention rdf:type and #

Stella

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass_2
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass_3
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass_4
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass_5
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_SubClass_6
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 19:03:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 June 2009 19:03:25 GMT