- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:40:10 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Pat,
we updated "etc" at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/
w.r.t http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-2.1_draft.html
| 4. RDF-entailment and RDF closures
rules http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-rules.n3
seed http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-facts.n3
closure http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-query.n3
| 6. RDFS-entailment and RDFS closures
rules http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-rules.n3
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdfs-rules.n3
seed http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdf-facts.n3
closure http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/rdfs-query.n3
the only thing that we couldn't proof is
rdfs:ConstraintProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .
???
(also cwm is not producing such a triple)
Anyhow, this "state of play" is a definite improvement Pat!
--
Jos
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 12:40:33 UTC