W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: review of test cases

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:41:27 -0400
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1177947687.6436.58.camel@otherland>

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 14:50 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> I am happy with these modifications, except:
> - the aboutTests change,
> - inclusion of base-detail, superceded by events
> - minor aspects of description of #xmlbase3
> 
> Also, no approval seems to have been added to the grddl result for 
> embedded-rdf4.

I wasn't sure where we stand with regards to approval on this test.
See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0255.html
where I indicate how this test might be conflicting with the 'current
reading'.

> aboutTests
> ==========
> 
> I'll explain my concerns, and make a suggestion as to achieve both our 
> goals.
> 
> My understanding is that a URI such as
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/titleauthor.html
> 
> are not part of the WG's intent.

Yes. Note in the current 'draft' the href link is absolute, so this will
not be a problem if / when it is published into
http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/ space - at least with regards to the
links in the source document.

> The GRDDL result of the test cases document, when published at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/

Yes, when gleaned 'on the fly' from http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/.

> will include such a URI; hence this is unsatisfactory.
> I also believe that the GRDDL results will be published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/grddl-tests.rdf

One option is to *not* publish that 'pre-gleaned' RDF graph from /TR
space.  I much prefer this.  However, if we go with your first
suggestion from below then this becomes a non-issue.

> and once again, this should not include relative URIs into 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/
> 
> If
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.rdf
> is copied as is into the TR directory, we will have such references to 
> non-resources.
> 
> It would be possible to do either of the following:
> 
> a) use the aboutTests as modified, but with an 
> xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/"
> and then someone wanting to do local testing, can simply delete that base.

I also prefer this.  It requires only a little more effort than prior to
get an environment for local testing (which I think is crucial -
especially considering my painful experience with being blocked from W3C
space for repeated requests)

> b) include the aboutTests as modified as aboutTestsLocal.xsl, and revert 
> aboutTests.xsl to only give the full URLs

I'm against this option as I think we can achieve both goals of not
relying on the current .htaccess redirect of test material as well as a
relatively painless way to run local tests.

> Personally, I think either of these is unnecessary, but I wouldn't mind.
> 
> For me, the implementor who is testing against a local copy of the test 
> material is using a cache, and that is their responsibility and not the 
> WGs. 
> (a) above, in particular, seems to be making enough allowance for 
> such an implementor

I agree.  I do think *some* allowance is prudent.

> 
> 
> Suggested change:
> 
> <xsl:template match="/">
>    <r:RDF>
>      <xsl:apply-templates />
>    </r:RDF>
> </xsl:template>
> 
> to
> 
> <xsl:template match="/">
>    <r:RDF xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/">
>    <xsl:comment>If you wish to run the tests using local copies of the 
> files then it is possible to modify the above xml:base as 
> appropriate.</xsl:comment>
>      <xsl:apply-templates />
>    </r:RDF>
> </xsl:template>

Done..

> base-detail
> ===========
> 
> The text is:
> [[
> # A transform that does not respect xml:base:
> input output
> 
> The output of a transform is processed with the retrieval IRI, not that 
> given by an xml:base.
> ]]
> This text is not consistent with the descriptions and decisions of the 
> xmlbase and htmlbase tests.
> 
> Since we have not approved this test, I suggest simply deleting it.
> We may want to review our coverage of the base issues later.

I agree (re: deleting it), I just wanted to confirm with you (as it was
in the pending list).  Done ..

-- 
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org






Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
our services, staff and locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.


===================================
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 15:41:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT