Re: doc reviews

>>>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com said:
> would like to see added approval of
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/statement-entailment/Manifest.rdf

Look OK for test001, test002 combinations

> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf
Look OK test001-004.  conjunction looks ok.

> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/Manifest.rdf
> -> after correction that this is just 1 test i.e. test001.nt |- test002.nt
>    which we approved, didn't we ?? (even with afterwards pinging DanC/PatH)

Look OK for test001.rdf->test001.nt and test002->test002.nt
There is no test001->test002 in the manifest

Dave

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 07:03:29 UTC