W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: bug in (approved) test case (syntax)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:19:48 -0400
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <17179.1248646788@waldron>

> You are looking at the (advertised) buggy output of the current OWL
> API. 

Yeah, I didn't read the message as nearly that strong.  I thought it was
talking about more subtle issues, with more obscure syntaxes that
RDF/XML.

Honestly, this makes me deeply skeptical about ending CR.

> The normative RDF/XML for these tests are on pages pointed to on
> the wiki page:
> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Feature-Obj=
> ectQCR-001-RDFXML

Is that the "Download OWL" link that I see now?   Or something...?

> These validate properly.

But are they right?   Why would I think they were?

   -- Sandro

> -Alan
> 
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > Looking at a random test case:
> > =A0 =A0http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Fe=
> ature-ObjectQCR-001
> >
> > I find the provided RDF/XML (attached) isn't well-formed XML. =A0I expect
> > the problem is pervasive.
> >
> > FWIW, the version in the all.rdf, which is somewhat different, looks
> > okay. =A0(It's also attached.) =A0I suppose we're running some bleeding e=
> dge
> > converter to produce the RDF/XML?
> >
> > =A0 =A0-- Sandro
> >
> >
> >
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 22:20:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 26 July 2009 22:20:13 GMT