W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Missing test:entailmentRules arcs

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:54:21 +0000 (GMT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0311071444510.26055@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 04:58, Jan Grant wrote:
> [...]
> > On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >
> > > The following entailment tests are not really defined (and dont work
> > > in my test harness), since they have no entailmentRules data:
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test008
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test009
> >
> > The intention is that in the absence of other entailmentRules, simple
> > entailment is used.
>
> Ouch. Closed-world assumption. That works against test harnesses that
> treat the manifest as an RDF graph to query. Please don't do that.

I'm aware of that; since multiple entailment rules and datatype support
aren't expressed using cons-style lists, this is already the case, so I
was inclined to consider the decision justified*.

(Having a regular syntax for the manifests that doesn't require all the
RDF parsing machinery to process is a requirement.)

jan

* I have a recollection of raising this ages ago in a telecon. It wasn't
  considered a problem at the time.

-- 
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/
"...er, that's my _spare_ axe." - Gimli in the Council of Elrond, FotR.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:56:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 7 November 2003 09:56:18 EST