W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: [closed] Re: test format has bad semantics?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:36:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200311131436.hADEai43006798@roke.hawke.org>
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.


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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC