- 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>
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
parts:
- an inconsistency test which states that (original PFPS premise)
rdfs-entails FALSE
- a general ECQ test case (perhaps three such test cases) that state:
FALSE
entails
<some random conclusion here, eg, conclusion from PFPS test case>
with test cases for rdf-entails, rdfs-entails, rdfs+dt(xsd:integer)
-entails
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