- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:44:13 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Summary: Prefer c++ modify the test case to say that the case is D-consistent with the empty graph, not that it is D-entailed by it; add D-inconsistent test using a different rdfs:subClassOf triple between xsd datatypes. pat hayes wrote: > (a) modify the test case doc by deleting the test case; Not particularly OK, well unless the semantics doc discusses rdfs:subClassOf in datatyping clearly. i.e. this should not be left as an exercise for the reader. > (b) modify the test case to say that this only follows under the > strengthened extensional semantic conditions on rdfs:subClassOf > described in section 4.1 of the semantics document; not good > (c) modify the test case to say that the case is D-consistent with the > empty graph, not that it is D-entailed by it; OK Also add a test case showing that xsd:string rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer . is inconsistent. > (d) modify the semantics of D-interpretations to insist that datatype > class subsetting *is* treated extensionally, so that the rule rdfD4 is > valid and the test case is OK. This can be done by adding the following > semantic condition on D-interpretations: Prefer (c) to this. (Another option is to explicitly list rdfs:subClassOf relationships between xsd datatypes as true by fiat). Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 04:45:17 UTC