- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:13:51 +0100
- To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
JanG: > One final option has occurred to me, which may have merit. > > Currently the reason that there may be multiple entailmentRules > specified for an entailment test case is to allude (strongly) to the > idea that support for different styles of reasoner as one "moves up the > stack" can be built by adding additional sets of axioms on top of > previous layers. > > That may or may not actually be the case; however, for the purposes of a > test case manifest, we need only a single "constant" value to indicate > (via indirection) _all_ the entailment rules that should be held to be > in force. Hm... I found it a point of explicitness to be able to mention which entailment rules are in effect and I found Sandro's point well taken and his proposed solution as well. > That is, currently an RDFS-entailment test is expressed by saying > (effectively) that both the rdf- and rdfs-entailment axioms are > in effect. > > This idea is perhaps past its prime; thus, for the purposes of > selecting entailment rules, the cardinality of test:entailmentRules > should be exactly one, to choose between entailment tests that are: > simple, rdf, rdfs, or datatype-aware (which implies rdfs entailment). > > The point about datatype selection in the last case being closed-world > is still true. To really deal with that, the expression of > "supported datatypes" should be done using a parseType=collection-style > rdf:List. Agreed :-) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 18:14:01 UTC