- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:36:44 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 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 > expressed. > > 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 > concern. > > Please reply, CC:ing www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating if this is an > acceptable response. Okay. My immediate concern was that people would think that RDF created by the RDF Core WG would be a good example. As long as it's clear that the Group knows this format is effectively broken, that's probably enough. Still, there should be a dc:description in the file and its schema file giving a pointer to the postponed issue. Since those documents are expected to evolve even post-Rec, there's no huge hurry there. Maybe the problem can be fixed post-Rec with a version-2 test setup. Formally, this response is acceptable. -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 09:33:55 UTC