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

Re: Test case document, simple entailment: preferred option.

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>
Message-ID: <OF9C54E183.ED56CCAF-ONC1256DD7.007D48D8-C1256DD7.007FA2C2@agfa.be>

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC