- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:40:53 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
oops... I gave my reply to the wrong list
[[
What a coincidence - while sitting in a plane this evening
I did't think to implement a "ex contradictione quodlibet".
The premise graphs are assumed to be the case unless they
can be proven to be inconsistent and then we just say so
and don't explicitly use them further. So we can't
run that testcase.
]]
--
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0050.html
sorry, too many outstanding mails...
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Brian McBride
<bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.c To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Dave Beckett
om> <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Sent by: cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
w3c-rdfcore-wg-req Subject: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph: new test case request
uest@w3.org
2003-10-15 04:19
PM
We have a request to add a new test case:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph
essentially a gigo test case.
Do the test case editors propose to add this test case? How many
implementations will pass it? If not enough, what do was say at request
to advance to PR?
Brian
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 18:40:59 UTC