W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: comment on agenda item 9 (rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:02:19 -0600
Message-ID: <3C10D9FB.4122D4E0@w3.org>
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> You are right (perfect guess!), it's better to have those names.
> I've updated the files, but currently I have some trouble to put them at
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/
> (and I asked Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> for help)
> Have a nice weekend!
> --
> Jos

I'm looking at:

Id: test001.nt,v 1.4 2001/12/03 14:46:44 josderoo Exp
Id: test001.rdf,v 1.4 2001/12/03 14:46:49 josderoo Exp

I sorta expected to see an entailment test, not just
an example arrangement of properties.

But as an example/explanation, it looks fine.

I'm happy to see it approved.

I'd like to see an entailment test (to show
that the transitive closure of parent is *not* entialed)
added at some point, but it's not critical.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 10:02:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:07 UTC