Re: TEST: scope

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:25:25 -0400
• To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20020629142525W.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: TEST: scope
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:55:50 +0200

[...]

> Jim, I agree and I've tried to do that for
> owl:TransitiveProperty and owl:unionOf in the
> test repository http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/
> 
> The gist is that
> ( <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/pathTransitiveP.n3>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil> )
>   log:entails
>   <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/pathTransitiveC.n3> .
> 
> ( <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOfP.n3>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil> )
>   log:entails
>   <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/unionOfC.n3> .
> 
> 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.

peter

Received on Saturday, 29 June 2002 14:25:46 UTC