- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:48:28 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Dave, thank-you for your comment (and I apologise that this wasn't responded to earlier). On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Dave Reynolds wrote: > In a message on 25th July [1] I noted that the tests: > rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002 > rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test004 > appeared to be incorrect. > > This comment does not seem to have been addressed and these tests remain in > the current wg approved tests (wg20031010). You comment generated quite a bit of discussion amongst the RDFCore WG. Those test cases are correct: according to the LC document, [[ S rdfs-entails E when every rdfs-interpretation of the vocabulary of S union E which satisfies every member of S also satisfies E. ]] In particular, in these two test cases, interpretations of the empty graph are only considered when they contain the vocabulary (and therefore related axiomatic triples and semantic conditions) of the respective conclusions. The test cases' correctness is unchanged with respect to the latest, post-last call editor's draft of the semantics document. I hope this adequately addresses your comments. If you would be so kind, please respond, CC:ing the mailing list, indicating if this response is satisfactory. Cheers, jan -- 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/ Semantic rules, OK?
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 05:49:29 UTC