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

Re: Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:55:30 +0100
To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCE119F10.3FD5D68F-ONC1256C76.0081E0A4-C1256C76.00837DCD@agfa.be>


Jan,

this is in a hurry as I will be offline in the next 24 hours
- I believe that we don't have the entailment
  semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes
- I have some problems with
  language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1
  language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1
  as we have datatyping builtin and it's hard
  to switch it of if we don't have test:entailmentRules
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes#
  maybe we should say that these entailments hold as in
  language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1
  language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2
  (which have the same premise/conclusion)
  but that an implementation could be incomplete
  ???

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                        
                    Jan Grant                                                                                           
                    <Jan.Grant@bristol.       To:     RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>                     
                    ac.uk>                    cc:                                                                       
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look)     
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ                                                                                 
                    est@w3.org                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-11-19 06:12 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        





They're described in
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf

I've put the major classes of test case in place (as I see them) - still
to do: JJC's entailment (whether we want to approve it or not), round
out the test cases for the other XSD datatypes.


Test case name & description... names are as given in the manifest file
(relative to http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/) -
see manifest file for related files.

test001
           A simple datatype production; a language+datatype production.
           Simply duplicate the constructs under
           http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt

test002
           A parser is not required to know about well-formed datatyped
literals.

non-well-formed-literal-1
           Without datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal
           cannot be detected.

non-well-formed-literal-2
           With appropriate datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped
           literal is a semantic error.

semantic-equivalence-within-type-1
           Demonstrating the semantic equivalence of two lexical forms of
the
           same datatyped value.

semantic-equivalence-within-type-2
           As semantic-equivalence-within-type-1; the entailment works both
ways.

language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1
language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-2
           Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct
for
           the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments.

language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1
language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2
language-ignored-for-numeric-types-3
           Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some
datatypes,
           when doing a DT-entailment.

semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes
           Members of different datatypes may be semantically equivalent.

This last one needs confirmation.


--
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:56:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:06 EDT