- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:58 +0000
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
just looked quickly over those, manual inspection... On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote: > Hi all, > I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass: > :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials looks ok to me. > :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer looks ok to me. > :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be, potentially if you asked for "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?) didn't look into the bind0x tests yet... Axel > as the same literal without > :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL > > The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data > is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology. The test :plainLit is > applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics. > Birte > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 > Computing Laboratory > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283520 >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 14:54:32 UTC