- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:27:47 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: TEST: scope Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:54:07 +0200 > [...] > > > > 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 Please document this meaning by pointing to a normative document or he documentation for the OWL testing. Without such, how can readers understand what is going on? > 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 Again, please document these conventions. > N3 syntax is used for those designations Where is a document that defines N3 syntax in a form sufficiently detailed to be usable to determine what the syntax is and means, and, moreover, is consistent with other W3C recommendations? I have not been able to find such a document. If such a document cannot be produced, N3 syntax is not acceptable. > IS ALL > > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ peter
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 01:29:38 UTC