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

Re: 2001-10-12#2 - review rdfs-domain-and-range TCs

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:41:10 +0100
To: barstow@w3.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFD2F5F574.C48F042D-ON41256AE8.00368D12@bayer-ag.com>

> WRT 2001-10-12#2 - review the test cases in:
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/
> for issue:
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range
> 1. test001.rdf - since RDFS:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/
>  already allows a property to have more than one domain, it's not
>  clear if this TC is designed to verify that or is intended to reflect
>  a WG decision.  In either case the purpose of the test case should
>  be included in the file.  See attached test001.rdf

fine, I've updated that one, however without the 2 extra triples
to "define some Classes"
(see point 3.)

> 2. test002.rdf - looks OK.  I added a Description and defined
>  some Classes for the values of the range properties.  See attached
>  test002.rdf


> 3. I don't understand TC's test003.rdf and test004.rdf are supposed
>  to test so I don't approve them.

Art, the idea was that

and some evidence for that can be found at

and as you can see there is no need to "define some Classes" because
that information can be RDFS entailed

> 4. axioms.n3 - I propose that NO N3 files get approved at this point.

OK :-|


PS the $Id$ in the .rdf files doesn't seem to be evaluated (in the .nt it's ok)
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 05:41:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC