- From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:17:17 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFE3508283.1637EFE3-ON852574B4.000C381F-852574B4.000C9127@us.ibm.com>
For the BLD+RDF and BLD+OWL tests, the dialect is given as BLD but these tests are not applicable to all BLD consumers. I think we will need to use additional values for the dialect property, or some other metadata so that implementations can determine which tests apply to them. Stella Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 08/27/2008 12:04 PM To RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org> cc Subject RDF and OWL test cases I added some test cases concerned with RDF and owl. I improvised a little when writing the RDF graphs. Let me know if its okay. RDF: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment OWL DL: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_II -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald Foster
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 02:18:21 UTC