W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

RE: test doc update

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:02:20 +0200
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-archive@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIEFECAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> yes, time doen't permit very much

I'm getting there.
Thanks for the ref suggestions.

I think the descriptions of your test cases can be improved.
At the moment, the description is essentially echoing the test as triples.

How about:


owl:intersectionOf 001

[[
The order of the classes in an <code>intersectionOf</code>
construct is unimportant.
]]

(that understates the amount of time we have spent on that problem!)
I notice that your test uses only the weak semantics - more of that on the
mailing list and at the f2f. We will need to have also a strong semantics
test, and show a decision, which I suspect will be for the entailment.

owl:maxCardinality 001

[[
A <code>prop</code> with <code>maxCardinality</code> of two cannot take
three distinct values on some <code>sb1</code>.
]]


owl:maxCardinality 002

[[
A <code>prop</code> with <code>maxCardinality</code> of two cannot take
three distinct values on some <code>sb1</code>.
In this example, one of the three values is implicit.
]]

owl:TransitiveProperty 001
[[
A simple illustration of transitivity.
]]

owl:unionOf 001
[[
A union is a superclass of its parts.
]]

owl:unionOf 002
[[
<code>owl:unionOf</code> behaves quite like set theoretic union.
]]

Justification, we will need test cases that illustrate any divergence from
this.
e.g. a strong semantics one, where we comment on which semantics are being
used.

Note XHTML can be copy-pasted straight into the editor; the manifest has
xmlns="XHTML".

I expect to have final draft to you for your approval this morning.
Assuming you can OK it at the RDF Core telecon.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 05:03:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:23 GMT