- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:44 +0200
- To: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
[...] > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf > -- I agree with this (rdf:aboutEach is now an error). Does the group? given [[ On 7th December 2001, the RDFCore WG decided to remove rdf:aboutEach from the RDF specification. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach this testcase should be OK > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error002.rdf > -- ditto also given [[ On 1st June 2001, the WG decided that aboutEachPrefix would be removed from the RDF Model and Syntax Recommendation on the grounds that there is a lack of implementation experience, and it therefore should not be in the recommendation. A future version of RDF may consider support for this feature. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteachprefix this testcase should be OK as well > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/not1P.rdf > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/not1C.rdf > -- I agree with this. (It would help if the test file contained its URL) I agree with this one as well only that the MT speaks about rdfs:member as does the http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ so an update is in order I think > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.rdf > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.nt > -- I agree with this, but can't see what it's supposed to be testing. Also > there appears to be some filename confusion with the RDFS entailment tests. > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.rdf > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt > -- I agree with this, and note there appears to be continuing filename > confusion. looking at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/allTestCases.html#rdfs-domain-and-range the main point is actually the "Positive RDFS-Entailment test" and the "Positive parser tests" are not testing this specific issue I think the whole idea should be to approve http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.nt > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/test001.nt > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/test002.nt > -- I agree with this. my recollection is that we have approved this one and that DanC and PatH agreed for the issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty I have done http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/manifest.n3 i.e. 4 positive and 2 negative entailment tests this is indeed RDFS and OWL entailment (in our original etc mode) and I didn't know how to testcase this issue otherwise -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 07:03:51 UTC