- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:30:26 -0500
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Right - i neglected to include that we also adopt some simple convention such as a positive entailment test is a rule like PASSED() :- <conclusion> Negative entailment tests are FAILED() :- <conclusion> -Chris (sent from my iPhone) On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > > Chris Welty wrote: >> >> >> This fulfills ACTION-633. >> >> In test cases, we have the (very minor) problem of how to advise >> implementors to treat the conclusion specifications - are they >> different >> documents or the same document as the test case premise. If they are > > They are not documents. They are simply condition formulas. > >> the same document, then it is possible to reuse the namespace >> prefixes >> from the premise and not re-declare them in the conclusion. Also, if > > We can have this as a convention in the test case specification: > CURIES in the conclusion are understood as full IRIs, expanded > according > to the prefix definitions in the premise. > Another possibility would be to have a number of prefix definitions on > the test case level, which would be used to expand CURIES both in the > premise and conclusion. > >> they are the same document then the "Local_Constant" test case [1] >> will >> not work properly. > > I cannot see how this would work. The BLD syntax does not have a > place > for conclusions in documents. > > Best, Jos > >> >> </chair> >> I suggest we approve the convention that the conclusion is the same >> document, and rewrite the local constant test case to use imports to >> achieve its effect. This convention appears to have been adopted in >> most >> test cases anyway. >> <chair> >> >> I am extremely wary of any proposal to change BLD in order to address >> what seems like a fairly simple problem. >> >> -Chris >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Constant > > -- > 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, 30 January 2009 13:31:11 UTC