- From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:56:23 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF8389D39D.6C58AB12-ON852574B7.007D73B3-852574B7.007E032C@us.ibm.com>
Those aren't really dialects though, are they? ( I used that in my examples, but rethinking). Also RDF, OWL, etc will potentially be combined in the future with other dialects so it might be more efficient to have a separate property setting. What about something like importProfile=xyz... ? (profile, as in the second argument of a two argument Import) meanig that this test requires the implementation to support imported documents of that type. Using the word profile may not be good, since it has a meaning in OWL? Whatever we choose should be appropriate to cover the the case where a RIF document of one dialect imports a RIF document of a different dialect (as the BLD spec says it can). Stella Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> 08/29/2008 04:03 AM To Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject Re: RDF and OWL test cases We can call the dialects RDF+BLD and RDF+OWL, in line with the names we use for the categories. Best, Jos Stella Mitchell wrote: > > 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 > -- 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 Monday, 1 September 2008 22:57:27 UTC