[RIF] changes to approved test cases?

Would it be ok to change the conclusions of the 5 approved tests cases 
below to be condition formulas instead of document formulas?   That way, 
all the approved and proposed test cases would have condition formulas as 
conclusions.

Stella

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent


----- Forwarded by Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM on 10/28/2008 08:58 PM -----

Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> 
10/23/2008 04:37 AM

To
Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: [RIF] test case conclusions






I'd say that conclusion should *never* be a document formulas, for two
reasons:
- BLD defines conformance only for entailment of condition formulas; not
document formulas
- things should be kept simple, i.e., all test cases should use the same
format, and many condition formulas (e.g., those containing quantifiers
and/or disjunction) cannot be expressed as document formulas

Best, Jos

Stella Mitchell wrote:
> 
> In the existing set of tests, a few of  the conclusions need** to be
> condition formulas  (eg [1]),  none of them need to be document
> formulas, and by far most of them can be either. Do we want to have
> a style convention that says they should be conditions if they can,
> and documents only if they need to be (or the reverse)?  Or just leave
> it to the preference  of the submitter?
> 
> Stella
> 
> [1]
> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Negative_Guards_1

> 
> 
> **although, couldn't those that entail non-atomic conditions also be
>     be represented as:
>         premises:
>                  ....
>                  ...
> 
>               test:passed()  :-  Or (... )
> 
>      conclusion:
>             Document (
>                Group (
>                     test:passed() 
>                )
>             )
> 
>    (it's not as readable for a human, I think)

-- 
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