- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:04:20 -0600
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:48, Jan Grant wrote: > 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; Er.. the way to show that we accept this entailment is true is to put it in the test suite. > 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> That suggests that false premises are typical in RDFS. But they're not. It's only this one very, special case of XML literals that allows falsehoods to be stated in RDFS. I don't mind these two tests *in addition* to the one Peter requested, but to do anything less than include his test as suggested says to me that we do *not* accept that this entailment holds, or that it's not illustrative of a very special issue. > 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. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 11:04:21 UTC