- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:41:10 +0100
- To: barstow@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> WRT 2001-10-12#2 - review the test cases in: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/ > > for issue: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range > > 1. test001.rdf - since RDFS: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ > > already allows a property to have more than one domain, it's not > clear if this TC is designed to verify that or is intended to reflect > a WG decision. In either case the purpose of the test case should > be included in the file. See attached test001.rdf fine, I've updated that one, however without the 2 extra triples to "define some Classes" (see point 3.) > 2. test002.rdf - looks OK. I added a Description and defined > some Classes for the values of the range properties. See attached > test002.rdf idem > 3. I don't understand TC's test003.rdf and test004.rdf are supposed > to test so I don't approve them. Art, the idea was that http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test001.nt and http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test002.nt and http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.nt rdfs-entails http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt and some evidence for that can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Oct/att-0016/01-etc.n3 and as you can see there is no need to "define some Classes" because that information can be RDFS entailed > 4. axioms.n3 - I propose that NO N3 files get approved at this point. OK :-| -- Jos PS the $Id$ in the .rdf files doesn't seem to be evaluated (in the .nt it's ok)
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 05:41:17 UTC