- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:54:21 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 04:58, Jan Grant wrote: > [...] > > On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > > > The following entailment tests are not really defined (and dont work > > > in my test harness), since they have no entailmentRules data: > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test008 > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#test009 > > > > The intention is that in the absence of other entailmentRules, simple > > entailment is used. > > Ouch. Closed-world assumption. That works against test harnesses that > treat the manifest as an RDF graph to query. Please don't do that. I'm aware of that; since multiple entailment rules and datatype support aren't expressed using cons-style lists, this is already the case, so I was inclined to consider the decision justified*. (Having a regular syntax for the manifests that doesn't require all the RDF parsing machinery to process is a requirement.) jan * I have a recollection of raising this ages ago in a telecon. It wasn't considered a problem at the time. -- 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/ "...er, that's my _spare_ axe." - Gimli in the Council of Elrond, FotR.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:56:15 UTC