W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: A datatype entailment - this should be a testcase?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:04:02 +0200
Message-ID: <00a301c283e9$8079a6b0$399316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 04 November, 2002 10:12
Subject: Re: A datatype entailment - this should be a testcase?

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that the entailment holds.
> > No, I don't think it is very useful as a test case.
> > 
> It shows a non-trivial interaction between the definition of the datatype 
> and entailment. This is crucially different from other entailments that we 
> have approved for out test cases.

I agree. I guess I'm thinking in practical terms. Testing that
entailment requires machinery that doesn't exist and also since
the test does not (IMMHO) reflect something that is likely to
arise in real use of RDF and datatypes, it seems a waste of time
and energy to create machinery to test it at the moment given
the tight schedule.

We could add it as an optional test case with a comment that
most systems are not likely to be able to test it.

I kind of thinking that the test cases are a regression test
for implementations and I wouldn't want to suggest that every
implementation be able to test that entailment, even though it
is true, as the machinery needed to test it would likely only
ever be used simply to test it, which is a waste of energy.

Do we have a concept of "optional" or "theoretical" test cases?


> Jeremy
> >># eg:foo rdfs:range xsd:boolean .
> >># range not needed for entailment.
> >><a:a> eg:foo "true"^^xsd:boolean .
> >><a:a> eg:foo "false"^^xsd:boolean .
> >><a:uri> rdf:type xsd:boolean .
> >>
> >>entails
> >>
> >><a:a> eg:foo <a:uri> .
> >>
> >>
> >>Description:
> >>
> >>We don't know which value <a:uri> has, but since it belongs to a finite
> >>class, and both members of that class are in the eg:foo relationship to
> >><a:a>, then <a:uri> must be.
> >>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 05:04:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC