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

Re: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph: new test case request

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:48:46 +0000 (GMT)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0310311545270.5445@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Brian McBride wrote:

> 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

PatH, might this be ok?

To clarify, we accept that this entailment is true; however, in the hope
of keeping the distinction between two concepts clear, we think that it
would be more usefully illustrative to break the test case into two

- an inconsistency test which states that (original PFPS premise)
rdfs-entails FALSE

- a general ECQ test case (perhaps three such test cases) that state:

    <some random conclusion here, eg, conclusion from PFPS test case>

with test cases for rdf-entails, rdfs-entails, rdfs+dt(xsd:integer)

The point of these to illustrate that any inconsistent premise can be
used to entail any conclusion.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
The Java disclaimer: values of 'anywhere' may vary between regions.
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 10:52:47 UTC

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