- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:57:28 +0100
- To: "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
>> >Can you name one of these tests, or all of them if it's convenient? >> > >> Doing a text search on the extra large version of Test reveals >> that the phrase XMLLiteral appears only in tests 201 to 205. >> >> 205 speaks of Full and a datatype map without XMLLiteral - >> which is impossible under Possible Solution 1 >> >> 201 and 202 include the case of Full and a datatype map >> without XMLLiteral - again impossible under Possible Solution 1. > > But would they switch entailment/consistency by having XMLLiteral? The test case manifest is explicit w.r.t. datatype support. In a RDFCore test case manifest one says eg:yourTest test:datatypeSupport rdf:XMLLiteral. and in an OWL test case manifest one says :hisTest otest:supportedDatatype rdf:XMLLiteral. and the latter is even explicit w.r.t. no datatype support :herTest otest:notSupportedDatatype rdf:XMLLiteral. The RDFCore and OWL test cases illustrate the designissues to my satisfaction. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2003 06:57:37 UTC