- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:29:26 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Friday, September 21, 2001, at 07:14 PM, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: > [ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:entailrdf [ tc:graph g4 ]. > describes the RDF entailment of the graph g4 given the > graphs g1, g2 and g3 Since the set of graphs on both sides of the entailment is closed, would not a list be more appropriate for enumerating them? [ a tc:Graph ; tc:contents (<g1> <g2> <g3>) ] tc:entailRDF [ a tc:Graph ; tc:contents (<g4>) ] . > and > [ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:rdfsentail [ tc:graph g4 ]. You use both entailrdf and then rdfsentail. I'd suggest mtrdf:entails and mtrdfs:entails to make the separation clearer, and also keep model theory statements out of the test cases schema. > The syntax testcases can be described in the same > manifest file as > e.g. > [ tc:graph g1 ] tc:entailrdf [ tc:graph g2 ]. > [ tc:graph g2 ] tc:entailrdf [ tc:graph g1 ]. Hmm, this seems less-than-adequate to me because it does not represent the key to these test cases, namely that they are in different formats... Perhaps something like: [ a tc:Graph ; tc:file <g1.rdf> ; tc:format tc:RDF-XML ] tc:equivalent [ a tc:Graph ; tc:file <g1.nt> ; tc:format tc:N-Triples ] . -- "Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2001 13:29:32 UTC