- 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