W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Bug in statement-entailment-test004 ?

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:15:42 +0100
Message-ID: <52B04E7E.9000201@vu.nl>
To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Peter,

While running the Semantics tests with our ClioPatria reasoner (work in 
progress) I came across statement-entailment-test004 (see below). 
Shouldn't the entailment regime be "RDFS"? It is now identical to 
statement-entailment-test002. Or is the bug in my eyesight (as usual)?

BTW I'm not really sure I understand why RDFS reasoning is relevant 
here, as the vocabulary used is all RDF vocabulary.

Guus

<#statement-entailment-test004> a mf:NegativeEntailmentTest;
   mf:name "statement-entailment-test004";
   rdfs:comment """
     RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a statement does NOT entail its
     reification. The following entailment does not, therefore,
     hold. This is the same as test002, but using RDFS-entailment.
   """;
   rdfs:approval rdft:Approved;
   mf:entailmentRegime "RDF" ;
   mf:recognizedDatatypes ( ) ;
   mf:unrecognizedDatatypes ( ) ;
   mf:action <statement-entailment/test002a.nt>;
   mf:result <statement-entailment/test002b.nt> .
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 13:16:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC