- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:14:21 -0500
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: 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... Interpret it as: when you run your code to exhaustion (it stops, or runs out of memory or time according to your view of what its resource limitations are) it fails to fail. The vagueness arises from the fact that if you had bought more RAM, maybe, or let it run for TWO weeks, maybe it might have failed. > >> 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/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 12:14:24 UTC