[closed] Re: test format has bad semantics?

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> [ Oops, this was the first of my three comment messages last night,
> but it bounced because I spelled the name of the list wrong. ]
> I think you need to use an rdf:List for test:entailmentRules.  As you
> have it now, the test:entailmentRules arcs can be dropped by RDF
> simple entailment, but doing so renders the test statement false.
> For example, a PositiveEntailmentTest on RDFS entailment is likely to
> have its conclusions no longer follow from its premises if the
> entailmentRules arc is dropped.

The working group accept this comment that the test case manifest format
currently has some closed-world assumptions.

To be specific, test cases exist with multiple entailment rules,
supported datatypes and/or premise documents. A full fix to this would
require a change to the way those properties of a test case are

It is felt that a change to the manifest format at this stage would be
potentially counter-productive, requiring effort from all maintainers of
test case harnesses in order to run the same set of tests.

While such a fix "would be nice", it is not felt to be critical to
delivering the test cases at this point.

Therefore the working group will create a postponed issue to track this

Please reply, CC:ing www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating if this is an
acceptable response.

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/

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 09:04:26 UTC