- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:47:23 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
My understanding of our current practice, is that this would typically be sufficient evidence to approve these tests. The lang issue on XMLLiterals will be one we need to sort out soon, possibly after RDF Core have sorted it out with I18N. I do not believe that should effect approval, but it will need addressing before advancing to PR. Jeremy Jim Hendler wrote: > > I'm not actually sure what our current practice is on moving test cases > from proposed to approved, but my group is developing several different > OWL reasoners one in prolog (OWLlet), one in Lisp (OWL Lisa) and one in > Java (PELLET). These are now all starting to pass tests, and PELLET has > passed several of the proposed consistency tests: > >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent102 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent103 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent201 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/consistent303 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/consistent503 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/consistent003 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/consistent010 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.2/consistent011 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/I5.3/consistent011 > > > I would therefore suggest we add these to the queue of proposed tests > that should become approved. > -JH > > p.s. Note that the third test above (consistent201) has a set of classes > that have nothing in them except rdfs:labels that include xml:lang > tags. I'm not sure, based on recent email about RDF and xml:lang as to > whether these are still legal, and whether, as the labels are not > explicitely tagged to be annotations, this is actually in Lite. Jeremy, > you might want to check this one >
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 08:49:34 UTC