- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:55:30 +0100
- To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan, this is in a hurry as I will be offline in the next 24 hours - I believe that we don't have the entailment semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes - I have some problems with language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1 language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1 as we have datatyping builtin and it's hard to switch it of if we don't have test:entailmentRules http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes# maybe we should say that these entailments hold as in language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1 language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2 (which have the same premise/conclusion) but that an implementation could be incomplete ??? -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol. To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> ac.uk> cc: Sent by: Subject: Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look) w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ est@w3.org 2002-11-19 06:12 PM They're described in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf I've put the major classes of test case in place (as I see them) - still to do: JJC's entailment (whether we want to approve it or not), round out the test cases for the other XSD datatypes. Test case name & description... names are as given in the manifest file (relative to http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/) - see manifest file for related files. test001 A simple datatype production; a language+datatype production. Simply duplicate the constructs under http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt test002 A parser is not required to know about well-formed datatyped literals. non-well-formed-literal-1 Without datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal cannot be detected. non-well-formed-literal-2 With appropriate datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal is a semantic error. semantic-equivalence-within-type-1 Demonstrating the semantic equivalence of two lexical forms of the same datatyped value. semantic-equivalence-within-type-2 As semantic-equivalence-within-type-1; the entailment works both ways. language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1 language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-2 Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct for the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments. language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1 language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2 language-ignored-for-numeric-types-3 Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes, when doing a DT-entailment. semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes Members of different datatypes may be semantically equivalent. This last one needs confirmation. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:56:08 UTC