- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:36:48 +0000
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 1 Mar 2011, at 19:42, Birte Glimm wrote: > > > On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > 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?) > > Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which also makes testing relatively difficult. The lists in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP or http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Symbol_Spaces (or intersection thereof) could be a start? > As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-) I would like this to be discussed at least once more, it seems there is use out there of datatypes - the fact that implementation do canonicalisation is IMO an indication that something should be done about datatypes at least. (We had some earlier discussion about a D$^-$-Entailment a while back, but I think just nobody had time to spend on it. At least I would like to gather once more which implementation does *what* about Datatypes and see whether there's need to standardise that, before we decide to drop it alltogether... but, yes, it's a matter of time as well. Axel > > Birte > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 > Computing Laboratory > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 09:37:23 UTC