Re: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph: new test case request

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Brian McBride wrote:

> We have a request to add a new test case:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph
>
> essentially a gigo test case.
>
> Do the test case editors propose to add this test case?   How many
> implementations will pass it?  If not enough, what do was say at request
>   to advance to PR?
>
> Brian

PatH, might this be ok?

To clarify, we accept that this entailment is true; however, in the hope
of keeping the distinction between two concepts clear, we think that it
would be more usefully illustrative to break the test case into two
parts:

- an inconsistency test which states that (original PFPS premise)
rdfs-entails FALSE

- a general ECQ test case (perhaps three such test cases) that state:

FALSE
entails
    <some random conclusion here, eg, conclusion from PFPS test case>

with test cases for rdf-entails, rdfs-entails, rdfs+dt(xsd:integer)
-entails

The point of these to illustrate that any inconsistent premise can be
used to entail any conclusion.


-- 
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/
The Java disclaimer: values of 'anywhere' may vary between regions.