- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:28:00 -0800
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hmm, yes, but nothing should change. I should have made the fix here, as I did for the previous test. I don't know why both tests were included, except perhaps to show that nothing changes here between RDF and RDFS. peter On 12/17/2013 05:15 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > 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 20:28:32 UTC