W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Hello world test case

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:14:43 -0600
To: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1163697283.3997.34.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 15:58 +0000, Ian Davis wrote:
> On 16/11/2006 03:59, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I don't understand how that helps. Why is an example.org URI
> > better than one from the test suite?
> 
> I'm suggesting that the triples produced should not rely on the URI of 
> the original HTML document

You don't seem to give any reason why not.

>  - notice that http://example.org/books#stand 
> is within the HTML markup. Thus we would avoid having to decide the base 
> URI issue.

I'm comfortable with the test materials as they are; I'm reasonably
confident that any decision on the URI issue will be consistent
with the materials as they are.

>  Your stated goal in the telecon yesterday was to agree the 
> first, simple test case. We can't do that in its current form IMHO.

I would sure like to find a reason behind your opinion.

 
> > And why introduce #stand? Why not a hashless URI? A book
> > is clearly an information resource.
> 
> I dispute that completely

Huh?

"This document is an example of an information resource. It consists of
words and punctuation symbols and graphics and other artifacts that can
be encoded, with varying degrees of fidelity, into a sequence of bits."
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/

In what way does a book such as The Stand not fit exactly
that description?

>  but that is a distraction from the issue at 
> hand

It's quite relevant to the Stand/King example currently in the spec.

>  which is why I passed over it when you first made that claim 
> several weeks ago. I'm happy to discuss it in detail in a separate 
> thread. But really the choice of hash or slash URI has no bearing on 
> this issue.

Then why did you suggest changing it?

 
> > What ambiguity do you see? i.e. what is it that has two
> > readings, and what are they?
> 
> Here's the result of my running the GRDDL transforms:
> 
> _:genid1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person> .
> _:genid1 <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King> .
> <file:///d:/tmp/stand.rdf> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/maker> _:genid1 .
> <file:///d:/tmp/stand.rdf> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "The 
> Stand" .
> 
> The subject URIs differ from those given in the expected test result 
> because we have not decided the base URI issue.

No, it gave different results because your running used something
other than the published test materials as its input. The base
URI of the input document of the test
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1#title_author
is
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/titleauthor.html


>  I would like to make 
> this test deterministic and capable of running without human interpretation.

The test is deterministic in its present form.

> Ian
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT