W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: TEST: scope

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:27:47 -0400
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020629172747R.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: TEST: scope
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:54:07 +0200

> [...]
> 
> > > This is using an RDF/N3 presentation syntax
> > > but the RDF/XML resources are there as well
> > > (I hope with not too many bugs, as I
> > > had to do the RDF list stuff by hand
> > > instead of using CWM's N3-to-RDF)
> >
> > Now wait just a minute here.  Are you actually suggesting that OWL tests
> > use N3 or log:entails?  If so, I protest in the strongest terms.  I am
> > *not* willing to have any OWL tests be written in a system that has 
> neither
> > syntax nor semantics, like N3.  Neither am i willing to have any OWL 
> tests
> > written using connectives that do not have a semantics, like 
> log:entails.
> 
> P log:entails C means that P U ~C is unsatisfiable

Please document this meaning by pointing to a normative document or he
documentation for the OWL testing.  Without such, how can readers
understand what is going on?

> P is designated as a list of RDF graph URI's
>   and namespace entailment URI's
> C is designated as a single RDF graph URI

Again, please document these conventions.

> N3 syntax is used for those designations

Where is a document that defines N3 syntax in a form sufficiently detailed
to be usable to determine what the syntax is and means, and, moreover, is
consistent with other W3C recommendations?  I have not been able to find
such a document.  If such a document cannot be produced, N3 syntax is not
acceptable.

> IS ALL
> 
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

peter
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 01:29:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT