Re: RDF and OWL test cases

On this one [1],  is the And in the conclusion an essential part
of the test, or a convenience to represent three separate
things that are entailed by the ruleset&data?  If it's the latter,
then having three tests each with one of the conjuncts as
the conclusion, would make better tests, because if it
fails they know more precisely what didn't work. (Though
as it  is currently, it may be better as an illustration for a human
reader since they can see all 3 at a glance --  so the choice depends 
on the main motivation for the tests).

Stella

[1]  
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence





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