- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:49:38 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Summary: I doubt you can make clearer tests of this issue than the one peter proposes - in particular Jan's proposed test is incorrect. while sympathetic to Jan's desire for meangingful test cases, I note that peter's test (particualrly the choice of conclusion) depends on a somewhat non-obvious technicality. false does-not-simply-entail G for any non-empty G, because G uses at least one URI which is not in all interpretations of false. Thus the test case needs to show an inconsistency, followed by garbage using the same vocab as the premise (or the central RDF vocabulary). (And we have rdf-entailment), ditto rdfs entailment). Peter's choice of garbage out rdf:type rdf:type rdf:type seems to be about as best as you can do to have obvious garabge given the constraint Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:49:59 UTC