Re: First version of a test suite for RDF*

On 11/24/2020 7:06 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> On 23/11/2020 14:39, Ghislain ATEMEZING wrote:
>> Hi Pierre-Antoine,
>> Many thanks for this great input.
>> Just to be sure I understand the coverage of the test suite: Are we 
>> going to add also RDFS entailment regime?
> The test-suite as it is is parial, just a first shot. And yes, the 
> idea is to add RDFS.
>> In general, how to be sure we take into account all the relevant 
>> cases? #justAsking.
> Just like any test-suite, you can never be sure...
> All the more reason to get as much feedback from the community.
>> Also here at opaque-iri [1], is it RDFS-Plus or OWL 2 RL here?
> I wrote RDFS-Plus, because the only requirement in this test-case is 
> to support owl:sameAs, and RDFS-Plus is the lightest regime I know 
> that supports it. But of course, it should also hold in all variants 
> of OWL.
I am very concerned where this is headed. RDF* should not depend in any 
form on RDFS or OWL or anything similar. This introduces unnecessary 
complications. All we need is RDF, i.e. triples, graphs etc.

If some here want to work on using RDF* for RDFS/OWL, they could spawn 
off another sub-specification such as RDFS* or OWL*.


Received on Monday, 23 November 2020 21:23:23 UTC