proposed test like rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002

Pat says [1]:

> Full disclosure: there is a case which COULD have been a test case 
> but isn't, which would have been affected if had been a test case, 
> which is
> 
> { } entails { _:x rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .}
> 
> which is not an valid LC2-entailment.  That is, the current semantics 
> requires that some containermembership properties must exist, even if 
> nobody talks about them.

which is just tricky enough that you should probably add it as a test
case.    My implementation would have to change to handle it, but it
would be an easy change.  For some implementations, it could be a real
pain.  (Queries like { ?x rdf:type ?y } will be unable to return
complete answer sets.)

I'll consider no response a satisfactory response for this comment,
given its timing.

      -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0095.html