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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:04:20 -0600
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1067616259.26798.369.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:48, Jan Grant wrote:
> 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;

Er.. the way to show that we accept this entailment is true
is to put it in the test suite.

>  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>

That suggests that false premises are typical in RDFS. But they're
not. It's only this one very, special case of XML literals that
allows falsehoods to be stated in RDFS.

I don't mind these two tests *in addition* to the one Peter
requested, but to do anything less than include his test
as suggested says to me that we do *not* accept that
this entailment holds, or that it's not illustrative
of a very special issue.


> 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.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 11:04:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 31 October 2003 11:04:25 EST