- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:16:07 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat: [...] > My action item > > 20030919#14 PatH To consider amendments to test cases > concerning nonentailments > > was to suggest a form of words for describing what it > means to pass a negative entailment test, right? > Suggestion: > > "The test is considered to be passed if the entailment > is <em>not</em> drawn using the rules of RDF-entailment > or RDFS-entailment, as above." > --> > "The test is <em>failed</em> if the conclusion can be > drawn from the premises using the rules of RDF- or > RDFS-entailment. The test is considered to be > <em>passed</em> when a thorough attempt to fail the > test is unable to achieve failure." I'm afraid that I can't make code for that last part... > This sounds vague, but then success at a non-entailment > test *is* vague, so the wording is designed to suggest > to a thoughtful reader that the notion needs some care. Adjectives like "thorough" and "vague" are soft for humans but hard for soft(ware)... I actually have no other wording and so I pass ;-) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 16:17:46 UTC