A simple datatype production; a language+datatype production. Simply duplicate the constructs under http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
A parser is not required to know about well-formed datatyped literals.
Without datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal cannot be detected.
With appropriate datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal can be detected.
Demonstrating the semantic equivalence of two lexical forms of the same datatyped value.
As semantic-equivalence-within-type-1; the entailment works both ways.
Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct for the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments.
Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes, when doing a DT-entailment.
Members of different datatypes may be semantically equivalent.
Where sufficient DT knowledge is available, a range clash may be detected; the document then contains a contradiction.
Language affects the denotation of rdf:XMLLiteral
From decisions listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html
Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ? Test for success of legal Normal Form C literal
Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ? Test for failure for literal not in Normal Form C
A uriref is allowed to match non-US ASCII forms conforming to Unicode Normal Form C. No escaping algorithm is applied.
A uriref which already has % escaping is permitted. No unescaping algorithm is applied.
Test for failure for uriref not in Normal Form C.
An international URI ref and its %-escaped form label different nodes in the graph. No model theoretic relationship holds between them.
This test shows the treatment of non-ASCII characters in the value of rdf:ID attribute.
This test shows the treatment of non-ASCII characters in the value of rdf:about attribute.
The question posed to the RDF WG was: should an RDF document containing multiple rdf:_n properties (with the same n) on an element be rejected as illegal? The WG decided that a parser should accept that case as legal RDF.
Like rdfms-empty-property-elements/test001.rdf but with a processing instruction as the only content of the otherwise empty element.
Like rdfms-empty-property-elements/test001.rdf but with a comment as the only content of the otherwise empty element.
The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces).
The value of rdf:bagID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces).
rdf:nodeID can be used to label a blank node.
rdf:nodeID can be used to label a blank node. These have file scope and are distinct from any unlabelled blank nodes.
On an rdf:Description or typed node rdf:nodeID behaves similarly to an rdf:about.
On a property element rdf:nodeID behaves similarly to rdf:resource.
The value of rdf:nodeID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces).
Cannot have rdf:nodeID and rdf:resource.
An RDF/XML serlializer is recommended to produce an exception if asked to serialize the following graph since there is no way to represent it in the RDF/XML syntax.
While it is a superproperty, _:a <rdfs:contains (@@member?)> _:b . does NOT entail _:a <rdf:_n> _:b . for any _n.
Should a property be allowed more than one rdfs:range property? What should the semantics of multiple domain and range properties be? -> Multiple domain and range constraints are permissable and will have conjunctive semantics. test001 describes a property with rdfs:domain the intersection of 2 domains test002 describes a property with rdfs:range the intersection of 2 ranges test003 sample statement test004 entailed description using test001, test002, test003 and the rules for RDF and RDFS entailment (see http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/ )
RDF Semantics defines rdfs:range to have an intensional reading. However, semantic extensions may give an extensional reading to range. The premise/conclusion pair is a non-entailment for RDFS reasoning, but may hold in semantic extensions.
RDF Semantics defines rdfs:range to have an intensional reading of domain. However, semantic extensions may give an extensional reading to domain. The premise/conclusion pair is a non-entailment for RDFS reasoning, but may hold in semantic extensions.
Cycles are permitted in subClassOf; therefore, no error occurs and the following entailment holds trivially.
Cycles are permitted in subPropertyOf; therefore, no error occurs and the following entailment holds trivially.
The inheritance semantics of the subPropertyOf relationship needs to be clarified. => subProperties inherit conjunctively the domain and range of their superproperties
RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a reified statement was a stating, not a statement. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold.
RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a statement does NOT entail its reification. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold.
RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a reified statement was a stating, not a statement. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold. This is the same as test001, but using RDFS-entailment.
RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a statement does NOT entail its reification. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold. This is the same as test002, but using RDFS-entailment.
This test case concerns URIs relative to a non-relative URI scheme base. It's beyond the scope of the WG to deal with this; it has therefore not been approved.
Test output corrected to use correct base URL.