add tests for rdfs:Proposition

[pfps]

No description provided.

[pfps]

link to these tests from Semantics when merged

[niklasl]

This isn't valid. It either needs to be:

_:pp rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .

or, perhaps, change mf:entailmentRegime to "RDFS-Plus" and use:

_:pp rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .
_:pp owl:sameAs <<( :a :b :c )>> .

A more radical alternative is to use SPARQL ASK queries for the result specs; since SPARQL allows for symmetric patterns. I.e.:

ASK {
    <<( :a :b :c )>> rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .
}

is valid. (I would be in favour of that and can do the changes if desired. Entailments don't need to be materialized, only true.)

Aside: There is no test for the entailed rdf:type of literals. This should be added too.

[pfps]

Changing to

:a1 :p1 _:pp .
_:pp rdf:type rdfs:Proposition .

[afs]

since SPARQL allows for symmetric patterns.

Syntax wise, yes, but the matching is to an RDF graph, not a symmetric RDF graph, so it falls at that step (spec wise).

[pfps]

It would be a good idea to also check for entailment of literals if that is not currently done, but that should be the subject of a different issue or PR.

[niklasl]

Looks good to me.

[niklasl]

It would be a good idea to also check for entailment of literals if that is not currently done, but that should be the subject of a different issue or PR.

Proposal in #205.