- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:04:51 +0200
- To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...] > * "expect the unexpected" is fast becoming my motto :-( (-: > ** minimalist = test type, status (APPROVED), related issue, input and > output files, and an indication if a warning is to be raised. As Good As Possible > PS. Current test-case taxonomy: > > positive parser test (input: .rdf file(s); output: .nt file; optionally, > an indication of a warning) > > negative parser test (input: bad .rdf file) > > positive RDF-entailment test (input: .rdf (or .nt) file(s); output: file > containing a valid entailment according t the rules of RDF-entailment) > > negative RDF-entailment test (as above, but the entailment does not > hold) > > ditto the above two test types but using the rules of RDFS-entailment as > outlined by MT. indeed, we use the entailment rules per indirection of URI's like <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> occuring in the subject-list of an entailment statement e.g. ( <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test001.nt> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test002.nt> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.nt> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ) log:entails <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt> . it's just a way to evolve... > Jos: I think this reflects the full extent of your test cases, or are > there others? There are no DT-specific tests here. I'm fine with that Jan, that's what we actually have -- Jos
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 07:08:38 UTC