- 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