W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2009

Action-844 - go over approved test cases

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:06:26 -0400
Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906251506q6be861a8j9c66bb380de395a8@mail.gmail.com>
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.


[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.

       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

       change dialect from BLD to Core

       change dialect from BLD to Core

       add seeAlso to point to

       change dialect from BLD to Core

       change name of test case to

[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

        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
       (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

        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
        this section has the "at risk" note
        about equality in a rule conclusion.
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:07:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:58 UTC