- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:08:09 +0000
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
One correction needed, but basically fine. I've ignored all the parser tests as they have been covered by the machine checkers and syntax experts. Issues xmlbase/Manifest.rdf#error001 This is the xml:base with a mailto: uri. Clearly the answer to this must come from the xml:base chaps. I suggest we leave the test unapproved and seek feedback from the xml:base folks. rdfs-container-membership-superProperty/Manifest.rdf#test001 rdfs:contains should be rdfs:member. approved by inspection rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002 rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test003 rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test004 rdfms-uri-substructure/Manifest.rdf#error001 rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#conjunction-test [[I would prefer that the statement that bar is a property be removed from the premiss in the above, as its redundant]] rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#intensionality-range rdfs-domain-and-range/Manifest.rdf#intensionality-domain rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property/Manifest.rdf#test001 [[The above confused me for a bit, till I noticed it was a neg entailment entailing a false doc. I might have expressed it as a positive entailment entailing that the prop is also a class.]] rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics/Manifest.rdf#test001 [[I would prefer the statement that bar is a property be removed from the above as it is redundant and unecessary. But the test is correct as is.]] datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-and-xml-literal datatypes/Manifest.rdf#range-clash datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes Brian
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 09:06:51 UTC