- From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:25:23 -0500
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Cc: rif WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
In the test section on positive syntax tests [1] we do say "Note that the premises of all positive and negative entailment tests (defined below) are syntactically correct RIF documents and so can be used as positive syntax tests," but I don't think it's wrong to keep Core_Safeness as a PositiveSyntax test if we want to call attention to it. Stella [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test#Positive_Syntax_Tests On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > > Gary Hallmark wrote: >> this test http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness incorrectly >> uses pred:numeric-add. When corrected to use func:numeric-add, the test > > I made the correction. > >> is the same as >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 >> (except the former is only a PositiveSyntaxTest whereas the latter is an >> entailment test). > > This is the crucial difference. The former is used to test whether > syntax validators correctly check safeness; the latter is used to test > the behavior of entailment checkers. > > > Best, Jos > >> >> I think this test should be removed. >> > > -- > Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it > +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 19:26:03 UTC