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

Re: Bug in statement-entailment-test004 ?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:28:00 -0800
Message-ID: <52B0B3D0.3020406@gmail.com>
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

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