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

Fwd: PS for PRD test cases

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:20:10 -0400
Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906181520l1b8af4fai95fb2844058e2c@mail.gmail.com>
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Also, in this test case [1], the syntax isn't valid according to the PS in
Appendix 9 of PRD. (I think Appendix 9 needs to be updated)

  - there's no bare membership formula allowed as an action block

  - a Forall always includes a 'such that'

  - I think in the RULE production, RULE needs to be changed to Implies
or Implies | RULE

Stella

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conflict_resolution


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Subject: PS for PRD test cases
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>



Some PRD test cases (ones that are also Core/BLD) don't use PRD PS because
they use ":-" instead of "IF...THEN."  Can PRD Appendix 9 define an
additional form that includes ":-" , and maybe have a note about it in
section 4.1.1, like there is for "External" in section 2.1.1 ?  Or do we
want to document this mapping somewhere in the test documentation? Or have
two different versions of PS for such test cases, for readability by target
audiences?

Also, I don't find a description of how the last three options in the
ACTION_BLOCK production in Appendix 9 (this syntax is used in the test
cases) relate to what is described in Section 3.1.2. I can gather from the
overview that they're Asserts, but don't think it's enough.

Stella
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 22:27:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 June 2009 22:27:40 GMT