W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: test cases needing review

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:44 +0200
To: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <OF714D3B4A.6DA12F38-ONC1256BCA.002985FE@agfa.be>


[...]

> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf
> -- I agree with this (rdf:aboutEach is now an error).  Does the group?

given
[[
   On 7th December 2001, the RDFCore WG decided to remove rdf:aboutEach
   from the RDF specification.
]] -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach

this testcase should be OK


> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error002.rdf
> -- ditto

also given
[[
  On 1st June 2001, the WG decided that aboutEachPrefix would be
  removed from the RDF Model and Syntax Recommendation on the
  grounds that there is a lack of implementation experience,
  and it therefore should not be in the recommendation.
  A future version of RDF may consider support for this feature.
]] -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteachprefix

this testcase should be OK as well


>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/not1P.rdf

>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/not1C.rdf

> -- I agree with this.  (It would help if the test file contained its URL)

I agree with this one as well
only that the MT speaks about rdfs:member
as does the http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
so an update is in order I think


>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.rdf

>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.nt

> -- I agree with this, but can't see what it's supposed to be testing.
Also
> there appears to be some filename confusion with the RDFS entailment
tests.
>
>
>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.rdf

>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt

> -- I agree with this, and note there appears to be continuing filename
> confusion.

looking at
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/allTestCases.html#rdfs-domain-and-range
the main point is actually the "Positive RDFS-Entailment test"
and the "Positive parser tests" are not testing this specific issue
I think the whole idea should be to approve
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.nt


>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/test001.nt

>
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/test002.nt

> -- I agree with this.

my recollection is that we have approved this one and that DanC and PatH
agreed


for the issue
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty
I have done
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/manifest.n3
i.e. 4 positive and 2 negative entailment tests
this is indeed RDFS and OWL entailment (in our original etc mode)
and I didn't know how to testcase this issue otherwise

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 07:03:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:17 EDT