RE: TEST: scope

I see no problem expressing these owl-entailments simply by reusing what the RDF
Core tests have done.

There is no N3 anywhere there.


The premises are put in one file, the conclusions in another, and in the
"Manifest" file the implication is expressed:



rdf:resource="" />
ml" />
ml" />
An international URI ref and its %-escaped form label
different nodes in the graph. No model theoretic relationship
holds between them.
rdf:resource="" />
rdf" />
rdf" />

To use this for a Negative owl entailment we would need to change the pointers
to various documents (the premises, the discussion etc); change the pointer
concerning the set of entailment rules from pointing to the RDF space to
pointing to the OWL space.

It's not perfect, but its sufficient.
We can always add a property or two if necessary.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Jos De_Roo
> Sent: 29 June 2002 20:54
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: TEST: scope
> [...]
> > > This is using an RDF/N3 presentation syntax
> > > but the RDF/XML resources are there as well
> > > (I hope with not too many bugs, as I
> > > had to do the RDF list stuff by hand
> > > instead of using CWM's N3-to-RDF)
> >
> > Now wait just a minute here.  Are you actually suggesting that OWL tests
> > use N3 or log:entails?  If so, I protest in the strongest terms.  I am
> > *not* willing to have any OWL tests be written in a system that has
> neither
> > syntax nor semantics, like N3.  Neither am i willing to have any OWL
> tests
> > written using connectives that do not have a semantics, like
> log:entails.
> P log:entails C means that P U ~C is unsatisfiable
> P is designated as a list of RDF graph URI's
>   and namespace entailment URI's
> C is designated as a single RDF graph URI
> N3 syntax is used for those designations
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA

Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 04:53:21 UTC