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

JanG:
> One final option has occurred to me, which may have merit.
>
> Currently the reason that there may be multiple entailmentRules
> specified for an entailment test case is to allude (strongly) to the
> idea that support for different styles of reasoner as one "moves up the
> stack" can be built by adding additional sets of axioms on top of
> previous layers.
>
> That may or may not actually be the case; however, for the purposes of a
> test case manifest, we need only a single "constant" value to indicate
> (via indirection) _all_ the entailment rules that should be held to be
> in force.

Hm... I found it a point of explicitness to be able to mention
which entailment rules are in effect and I found Sandro's point
well taken and his proposed solution as well.

> That is, currently an RDFS-entailment test is expressed by saying
> (effectively) that both the rdf- and rdfs-entailment axioms are
> in effect.
>
> This idea is perhaps past its prime; thus, for the purposes of
> selecting entailment rules, the cardinality of test:entailmentRules
> should be exactly one, to choose between entailment tests that are:
> simple, rdf, rdfs, or datatype-aware (which implies rdfs entailment).
>
> The point about datatype selection in the last case being closed-world
> is still true. To really deal with that, the expression of
> "supported datatypes" should be done using a parseType=collection-style
> rdf:List.

Agreed :-)


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