W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: how to observe RIF BLD consumer conformance?

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:03:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4BC86E14.1070507@gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:01 -0500, Chris Welty wrote:
>> Dan,
>> We struggled with this point based on RIF's status as an interchange format, not a rule language per se.  Thus the conformance refers to the ability to translate in a way that does not change the semantics, which includes entailments.
>> It is not, as you say, directly observable in a positive way, however it is negatively observable
>>  through sets of tests, ie you can test if it did not happen. 
> I don't see how you could test that it did not happen either.
> Do any of the existing RIF test cases show how it can be done?

Where I'm assuming the "it" here refers to the property of being conformant.

In general, a RIF processor takes statements in RIF syntax and translates them into some existing rule language. This is described in each of the documents. If you translate a positive test case and its conclusion into the target rule language, the conclusion should hold.  If you translate a negative test case into the rule language then the conclusion should not hold.


>> -Chris
>> Dan Connolly wrote:
>>> I see:
>>> "A RIF processor is a conformant BLDΤ,Ε consumer iff it implements a
>>> semantics-preserving mapping, μ, from the set of all BLDΤ,Ε formulas to
>>> the language L of the processor (μ does not need to be an "onto"
>>> mapping)."
>>>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses
>>> I don't see how this property is observable/testable; i.e. why
>>> this product class is defined at all.
>>> A conformant RIF-BLD consumer isn't required to compute entailment?
>>> This much is observable: "A conformant RIF-BLD consumer must reject all
>>> inputs that do not match the syntax of BLD." But that's just syntax
>>> checking.
>>> editorial: why "conformant" rather than "conforming"?

Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 14:03:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:00 UTC