- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:02:20 +0200
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-archive@w3.org
> yes, time doen't permit very much I'm getting there. Thanks for the ref suggestions. I think the descriptions of your test cases can be improved. At the moment, the description is essentially echoing the test as triples. How about: owl:intersectionOf 001 [[ The order of the classes in an <code>intersectionOf</code> construct is unimportant. ]] (that understates the amount of time we have spent on that problem!) I notice that your test uses only the weak semantics - more of that on the mailing list and at the f2f. We will need to have also a strong semantics test, and show a decision, which I suspect will be for the entailment. owl:maxCardinality 001 [[ A <code>prop</code> with <code>maxCardinality</code> of two cannot take three distinct values on some <code>sb1</code>. ]] owl:maxCardinality 002 [[ A <code>prop</code> with <code>maxCardinality</code> of two cannot take three distinct values on some <code>sb1</code>. In this example, one of the three values is implicit. ]] owl:TransitiveProperty 001 [[ A simple illustration of transitivity. ]] owl:unionOf 001 [[ A union is a superclass of its parts. ]] owl:unionOf 002 [[ <code>owl:unionOf</code> behaves quite like set theoretic union. ]] Justification, we will need test cases that illustrate any divergence from this. e.g. a strong semantics one, where we comment on which semantics are being used. Note XHTML can be copy-pasted straight into the editor; the manifest has xmlns="XHTML". I expect to have final draft to you for your approval this morning. Assuming you can OK it at the RDF Core telecon. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 05:03:11 UTC