W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: non-entailment test for imports (was Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:17:47 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306211917.47962.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Ian
>At this point some may want to point out that Test doesn't say
>anything about entailment;

the first version of test said something about running the entailment tests.

As it became clear that the WG consensus was to define the consistency 
checkers, I concentrated the text around such artefacts, and left how to 
execute the entailment tests as an exercise for the reader. I regard that as 
an editorial decision, and would be happy to discuss it with anyone wishing 
to review that section of Test (Testing an OWL Implementation
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#running
contrast with
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-test-20021024/#running
)


The LC draft does defer to S&AS concerning what is intended by entailment in 
an entailment test.
See e.g.
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#testEntailment
which links to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/direct.html#direct_entails
and
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/rdfs.html#rdfs_entails_Full

Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 13:18:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT