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

Re: Test case document, simple entailment: preferred option.

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:40:32 +0100
To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAB4F15F4.3EBB2ECB-ONC1256DD7.0076B16B-C1256DD7.00771757@agfa.be>


JanG:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jan Grant wrote:
>
> > Looking for guidance from the WG here (and in particular from JJC since
> > he's the WebOnt test case editor).
>
> Apologies to Jos! Who is, of course, co-editor.

No need to apologize, it's on the web :-)
and Jeremy is definitely the driving force!

> In a nutshell, since the owners of many testcase harnesses are present
> (so disemination of this change won't be too difficult),
> I think that the selection of an rdf:List-based approach for declaring
> (a) entailment rules and (b) "supported" datatype requirements for test
> cases really comes down to the impact on WebOnt's test cases.

Sandro made a critical comment in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0133.html

[[
I think you need to use an rdf:List for test:entailmentRules.  As you
have it now, the test:entailmentRules arcs can be dropped by RDF
simple entailment, but doing so renders the test statement false.
For example, a PositiveEntailmentTest on RDFS entailment is likely to
have its conclusions no longer follow from its premises if the
entailmentRules arc is dropped.
]]

and rdf:List can indeed repair that situation I think.
Same for (more than one) test:premiseDocument btw
(we actually have such cases in OWL test today).
It is late in the day, but I think we have to fix this...


> As to the impact on this WG's test case documents:
>
> - the range of entailmentRules and datatypeSupport become rdf:List; the
> testcase schema document would need to be updated.

plus the test:premiseDocument list I gather...

> - the syntax for the Manifest files would use rdf:parseType=collection
> to keep the parsing of manifest files simple.
> - simple entailment rules are indicated by an empty entailment rules
> list.
>
> The various manifests would need rewriting (pretty trivially
> automatable).

The bane of my existence is...

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 16:40:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 7 November 2003 16:40:38 EST