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

Action-844 - go over approved test cases

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:06:26 -0400
Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906251506q6be861a8j9c66bb380de395a8@mail.gmail.com>
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Based on our review at Tuesday's telecon, I made the changes for
[1]-[12], except 2a, which is newly added.

We didn't look at [13]-[23] yet.

Stella


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment
       change status to Obsolete because
       the owl-dl-annotation-entailment
       profile has been been removed from SWC.

       add a note to the description about
       about the status change.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent
       change dialect from BLD to Core

       remove comment about obsolete
       fixed-arity requirement from
       the description.

[2a]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
       return this to its original form as
       a Negative Entailment test in a pair
       with [2]. The non-conclusion would
       be ex:p(ex:a->1). This was changed
       to a Negative Syntax test at approval
       time, but the fixed-arity restriction
       has since been removed.

       NOTE: update description and seeAlso
       of [2], based on this update.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes
       change dialect from BLD to Core

       update names of guard predicates:
           isDecimal --> is-literal-decimal
           isInteger --> is-literal-integer

       change the prefix directive xsd to xs

[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Predicate
       change dialect from BLD to Core

[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
       change dialect from BLD to Core

       remove seeAlso (to obsoleted test)

       update specRef to

[6]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1
       change dialect from BLD to Core

[7]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2
       change dialect from BLD to Core

       add seeAlso to point to
       OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1

[8]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment
       change dialect from BLD to Core

       change name of test case to
       RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment_2

[9] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Member_1
       change dialect from Core to BLD
       (membership in rule conclusion)

       add seeAlso to point to RDF_Combination_SubClass*

[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
       update name of guard predicate:
         isDecimal --> is-literal-decimal

[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment
       update names of guard predicates:
          isInteger --> is-literal-integer
          isNotInteger --> is-literal-not-integer

[12]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_3
        change rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral in
        the description and the conclusion

[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything
        add a description?

[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conflict_resolution
        The syntax isn't valid according to
        Appendix 9 of PRD. (I think Appendix
        needs to be updated).

          - a plain membership formula is
            not allowed in an action block

          - 'Forall' var+ must be followed
            by 'such that'

[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/IRI_from_IRI

       From this test case and the definition
       of pred:iri-string (sect 3.4.4), I get that
       I(""http;/example.com/example#a"^^rif:iri"^^rif:iri)="http;/example.com/example#a"^^rif:iri.
       (in the relevant interpretation) Is that right?

[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/YoungParentDiscount_1

        seeAlso points to (Proposed) YoungParentDiscount_2.
        Is this now redundant with YoungParentDiscount_1,
        which now has both conclusions combined into one?

        Since this test is valid with the Simple profile
        also using that may set a better example,since
        this is a tutorial test case.

[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness_2
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_2
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_3

        for 18 and 21, add an additional specRef of
        http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness

        for 19 move 2nd part of purpose into description.

        for all, make the seeAlso reference all the
        others, or decide on a few subgroups?

[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2

        For both the above, change specRef to be
        http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas
        this section has the "at risk" note
        about equality in a rule conclusion.
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:07:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:07:08 GMT