Re: test cases needing review


> -- I agree with this (rdf:aboutEach is now an error).  Does the group?

   On 7th December 2001, the RDFCore WG decided to remove rdf:aboutEach
   from the RDF specification.
]] --

this testcase should be OK

> -- 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.
]] --

this testcase should be OK as well



> -- 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
so an update is in order I think



> -- I agree with this, but can't see what it's supposed to be testing.
> there appears to be some filename confusion with the RDFS entailment


> -- I agree with this, and note there appears to be continuing filename
> confusion.

looking at
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



> -- I agree with this.

my recollection is that we have approved this one and that DanC and PatH

for the issue
I have done
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

Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 07:03:51 UTC