- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:42:07 +0100
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 01:14 AM 9/22/01 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>We describe an RDF/RDFS entailment test in RDF (a matter
>of eating your own dogfood) so that they have a precise
>and machine understandable description
>e.g.
> [ 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
>and
> [ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:rdfsentail [ tc:graph g4 ].
>describes the RDFS entailment of the graph g4 given the
>graphs g1, g2, g3 and the rules in [2].
>
><comment>
> tc: is a namespace prefix for a testcase schema
> gi is a uriref of a .rdf or .nt testcase graph
> we can write that straightforward in N-triples
></comment>
I like the general approach here, but would like to see the MT distinction
maintained between RDF entailment and schema closure. Maybe using
something like:
[ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:entailrdf [ tc:graph g4 ] .
[ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:merge [ tc:graph g4 ] .
[ tc:graph g1 ] tc:schemaClosure [ tc:graph g2 ] .
?
Then RDFS entailment might be described as something like:
[ tc:graph g1, g2, g3 ] tc:merge [ tc:graph g4 ] .
[ tc:graph g4 ] tc:schemaClosure [ tc:graph g5 ] .
[ tc:graph g5 ] tc:entailrdf [ tc:graph g6 ] .
where satisfying values for g6 are exactly what is s-entailed by { g1 g2 g3 }.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 04:53:32 UTC