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

#embedded-rdf4 Re: review of test cases

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <46361E31.9010209@hpl.hp.com>
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Oh yes, I agree that the earlier resolution isn't really valid.

I believe that the current library code deals with this correctly: by 
ignoring the xml:base on the root element, and only doing something with 
xml:base's lower down the tree.

Jena is passing this test.

I propose (re-)approving it.

===

I am also happy if we delete it, if that is the easier option.

Jeremy


Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> 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 - inclusion of base-detail, superceded by events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 ..
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 16:50:07 GMT

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