W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Review of not-APPROVED Entailment and Miscellaneous tests

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:01:17 +0000
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <9667.1042041677@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


Approved by inspection
  Positive datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes
  Positive datatypes/Manifest.rdf#range-clash
    (not quite sure if RDF has a meaning for a false document?)
  Negative datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-and-xml-literal
  Positive rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002
  Positive rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test003
  Positive rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test004
  Positive rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#conjunction-test
  Negative rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#intensionality-range
  Negative rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#intensionality-domain

  Negative rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property/Manifest.rdf#test001
    This is a negative entailment test that concludes a "false
    document" which is a bit wierd!

  Positive rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/Manifest.rdf#test001

Not approved
  Negative rdfms-xmllang/Manifest.rdf#test007a
  Negative rdfms-xmllang/Manifest.rdf#test007b
  Negative rdfms-xmllang/Manifest.rdf#test007c
    These three have no description; I suggest something like,
      "language is not involved in entailment"

    I assumed this is from the RDF Semantics 1.2:
    [[The meaning of a literal is principally determined by its
      character string]].
    however later in 1.3 it says:
    [[ Simple literals, without embedded datatypes, are always
    interpreted as referring to themselves: either a character string
    or a pair consisting of two character strings, the second of
    which is a language tag.]]

    Can somebody point to me the rule that says these entailments are

  Negative rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/Manifest.rdf#test001
    Might be a typo?  not1P.rdf has:
       <rdfs:contains rdf:resource="http://example/stuff#somethingElse"/>
    and there is no such term.

    Maybe this should be rdfs:member ?  If so then it seems plausible
    but is there a rule that forbids it, or is it done by omission of
    this entailment in the "If E contains" rules sections.

Suggest obsolete
  Miscellaneous Test rdfms-uri-substructure/Manifest.rdf#error001
    Although we suggest that you produce exception if something
    cannot be serialized, I don't think this is very useful as a
    Otherwise, it is approved.

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 11:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC