Action-844 (go over test cases for core/bld/prd)

I went over the Approved test cases and noted below where I think they
need updates to bring them in line with the current specs. I didn't make any
changes to the test cases, but can if they're agreed to.

Stella


*change status to Obsolete:*
      [1]  (OWL-DL-annotation profile is no longer in SWC, since
combinations are now defined with respect to OWL 2)

      I think [5] is still valid?

*change dialect from BLD to Core*:
     [2] - [8]

*change dialect from Core to BLD: *
     [9] (membership in a rule conclusion, subclass in a rule conclusion)

*update names of guard predicates:
*     [3], [10], [11]

*change rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral:
*     [12] (in description and conclusion)

*update description, specRef, seeAlso, prefix directive...:*
     [2]  update description to not refer to obsolete fixed-arity
requirement
     [3]  prefix directive: change xsd --> xs
     [5]  seeAlso refers to obsolete test case, specRef refers to removed
SWC section
     [7]  add seeAlso to point to
OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1
     [9]  add seeAlso to point to RDF_Combination_SubClass* test cases
     [13] add a description (and maybe a specRef)
     [15] typo in description: "...corresponding to representing the
first..."
     [17]-[21] could update seeAlso and specRef to make them more complete
     [22],[23] could update specRef to something better

*questions:
*     [14] PS issues, sent a separate email about it

     [15] From this test case and the DTB definition of pred:iri-string
           (sect 3.4.4), I get that I(""
http://example.com/example#a"^^rif:iri"^^rif:iri<http://example.com/example#a%22%5E%5Erif:iri%22%5E%5Erif:iri>
)
          = "http://example.com/example#a"^^rif:iri<http://example.com/example#a%22%5E%5Erif:iri>.
 Is
that right?

     [16] seeAlso points to (Proposed) YoungParentDiscount_2, which
           is probably now redundant with YoungParentDiscount_1, which
           has both conclusions combined into one.

           I think this test is valid with the Simple profile also?
           Does using that instead of RDF profile set a better example,
           since this is a tutorial test case?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Predicate
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
[6]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1
[7]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2
[8]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment_2
[9] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Member_1
[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment
[12]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_3
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conflict_resolution
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/IRI_from_IRI
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/YoungParentDiscount_1
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness_2
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_2
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_3
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2