APPROVED APPROVED 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 APPROVED A parser is not required to know about well-formed datatyped literals. APPROVED Without datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal cannot be detected. APPROVED With appropriate datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal can be detected. APPROVED Demonstrating the semantic equivalence of two lexical forms of the same datatyped value. APPROVED As semantic-equivalence-within-type-1; the entailment works both ways. APPROVED Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct for the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments. APPROVED Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct for the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments. APPROVED Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes, when doing a DT-entailment. APPROVED Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes, when doing a DT-entailment. APPROVED Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes, when doing a DT-entailment. PENDING Members of different datatypes may be semantically equivalent. PENDING Where sufficient DT knowledge is available, a range clash may be detected; the document then contains a contradiction. PENDING Language affects the denotation of rdf:XMLLiteral APPROVED From decisions listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html APPROVED From decisions listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html APPROVED From decisions listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html APPROVED Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ? Test for success of legal Normal Form C literal APPROVED Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ? Test for failure for literal not in Normal Form C APPROVED Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ? Test for failure for literal not in Normal Form C APPROVED A uriref is allowed to match non-US ASCII forms conforming to Unicode Normal Form C. No escaping algorithm is applied. APPROVED A uriref which already has % escaping is permitted. No unescaping algorithm is applied. OBSOLETED Test for failure for uriref not in Normal Form C. APPROVED An international URI ref and its %-escaped form label different nodes in the graph. No model theoretic relationship holds between them. APPROVED An international URI ref and its %-escaped form label different nodes in the graph. No model theoretic relationship holds between them. APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED OBSOLETED OBSOLETED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED OBSOLETED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED OBSOLETE APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED PENDING PENDING APPROVED APPROVED PENDING This test shows the treatment of non-ASCII characters in the value of rdf:ID attribute. PENDING This test shows the treatment of non-ASCII characters in the value of rdf:about attribute. PENDING 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. APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED PENDING Like rdfms-empty-property-elements/test001.rdf but with a processing instruction as the only content of the otherwise empty element. PENDING Like rdfms-empty-property-elements/test001.rdf but with a comment as the only content of the otherwise empty element. APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED OBSOLETED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED PENDING The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:ID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:bagID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:bagID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED allowed with warnings APPROVED allowed with warnings APPROVED allowed with warnings PENDING APPROVED PENDING rdf:nodeID can be used to label a blank node. PENDING rdf:nodeID can be used to label a blank node. These have file scope and are distinct from any unlabelled blank nodes. OBSOLETED On an rdf:Description or typed node rdf:nodeID behaves similarly to an rdf:about. PENDING On a property element rdf:nodeID behaves similarly to rdf:resource. PENDING The value of rdf:nodeID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:nodeID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING The value of rdf:nodeID must match the XML Name production, (as modified by XML Namespaces). PENDING Cannot have rdf:nodeID and rdf:ID. PENDING Cannot have rdf:nodeID and rdf:about. PENDING Cannot have rdf:nodeID and rdf:resource. PENDING PENDING 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. 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. PENDING PENDING APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED PENDING PENDING While it is a superproperty, _:a <rdfs:contains (@@member?)> _:b . does NOT entail _:a <rdf:_n> _:b . for any _n. APPROVED APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED NOT_APPROVED 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/ ) PENDING 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. PENDING 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. APPROVED Cycles are permitted in subClassOf; therefore, no error occurs and the following entailment holds trivially. APPROVED Cycles are permitted in subPropertyOf; therefore, no error occurs and the following entailment holds trivially. PENDING The inheritance semantics of the subPropertyOf relationship needs to be clarified. => subProperties inherit conjunctively the domain and range of their superproperties APPROVED RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a reified statement was a stating, not a statement. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold. APPROVED RDFCore WG RESOLVED that a statement does NOT entail its reification. The following entailment does not, therefore, hold. APPROVED 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. APPROVED 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. APPROVED APPROVED NOT_APPROVED 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. APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED OBSOLETED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED Test output corrected to use correct base URL. APPROVED APPROVED