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

Re: test cases wording

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:16:07 +0200
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF85AB4B56.A0D8D958-ONC1256DB2.006D877E-C1256DB2.006F60C4@agfa.be>


Pat:
[...]
> My action item
>
> 20030919#14 PatH To consider amendments to test cases
>                  concerning nonentailments
>
> was to suggest a form of words for describing what it
> means to pass a negative entailment test, right?
> Suggestion:
>
> "The test is considered to be passed if the entailment
> is <em>not</em> drawn using the rules of RDF-entailment
> or RDFS-entailment, as above."
> -->
> "The test is <em>failed</em> if the conclusion can be
> drawn from the premises using the rules of RDF- or
> RDFS-entailment. The test is considered to be
> <em>passed</em> when a thorough attempt to fail the
> test is unable to achieve failure."

I'm afraid that I can't make code for that last part...

> This sounds vague, but then success at a non-entailment
> test *is* vague, so the wording is designed to suggest
> to a thoughtful reader that the notion needs some care.

Adjectives like "thorough" and "vague" are soft for humans
but hard for soft(ware)...
I actually have no other wording and so I pass ;-)


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 16:17:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 1 October 2003 16:17:59 EDT