- From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:06:26 -0400
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Based on our review at Tuesday's telecon, I made the changes for [1]-[12], except 2a, which is newly added. We didn't look at [13]-[23] yet. Stella [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment change status to Obsolete because the owl-dl-annotation-entailment profile has been been removed from SWC. add a note to the description about about the status change. [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent change dialect from BLD to Core remove comment about obsolete fixed-arity requirement from the description. [2a]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic return this to its original form as a Negative Entailment test in a pair with [2]. The non-conclusion would be ex:p(ex:a->1). This was changed to a Negative Syntax test at approval time, but the fixed-arity restriction has since been removed. NOTE: update description and seeAlso of [2], based on this update. [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes change dialect from BLD to Core update names of guard predicates: isDecimal --> is-literal-decimal isInteger --> is-literal-integer change the prefix directive xsd to xs [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Predicate change dialect from BLD to Core [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment change dialect from BLD to Core remove seeAlso (to obsoleted test) update specRef to [6]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 change dialect from BLD to Core [7]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2 change dialect from BLD to Core add seeAlso to point to OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 [8]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment change dialect from BLD to Core change name of test case to RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment_2 [9] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Member_1 change dialect from Core to BLD (membership in rule conclusion) add seeAlso to point to RDF_Combination_SubClass* [10] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition update name of guard predicate: isDecimal --> is-literal-decimal [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment update names of guard predicates: isInteger --> is-literal-integer isNotInteger --> is-literal-not-integer [12]_http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_3 change rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral in the description and the conclusion [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything add a description? [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conflict_resolution The syntax isn't valid according to Appendix 9 of PRD. (I think Appendix needs to be updated). - a plain membership formula is not allowed in an action block - 'Forall' var+ must be followed by 'such that' [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/IRI_from_IRI From this test case and the 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"^^rif:iri. (in the relevant interpretation) Is that right? [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/YoungParentDiscount_1 seeAlso points to (Proposed) YoungParentDiscount_2. Is this now redundant with YoungParentDiscount_1, which now has both conclusions combined into one? Since this test is valid with the Simple profile also using that may set a better example,since this is a tutorial test case. [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 for 18 and 21, add an additional specRef of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness for 19 move 2nd part of purpose into description. for all, make the seeAlso reference all the others, or decide on a few subgroups? [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1 [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2 For both the above, change specRef to be http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas this section has the "at risk" note about equality in a rule conclusion.
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:07:07 UTC