W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: more struggles with POWDER test matierals

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:36:52 -0500
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-powderwg <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-Id: <1241789812.5995.20295.camel@pav.lan>
Dom, are you available to look into this today?

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:47 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
> Removing TAG list for now, will reply to that list in due course.
> Adding Dan Bri 'cos he was asking similar questions.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> There's been an update to the doc since your original comment. I believe 
> you'll find that all the documents cited in the manifest files are 
> correctly addresses but we'll double check them.
> 
> When preparing to send the PR transition request last week I found, 
> somewhat to my horror, that the schemas I had believed to be in place 
> weren't - that has now been corrected, complete with GRDDL links i.e. 
> this was done after your TAG meeting.
> 
> The XSLTs [1,2] have been tested extensively (most of the GRDDL tests in 
> the Test Suite are actually the output of the XSLTs) so we have no 
> worries there. However, testing whether this works in an off-the shelf 
> GRDDL tool is a little harder.
> 
> The example you chose was [3]. Put that into the W3C GRDDL service [4] 
> and you get this error:
> 
> Failed to parse stylesheet in 
> 'http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder2powderBase.xsl' at line 1, column 
> -1 in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder#
> 
> Now... that means that the service is locating the correct XSLT - good. 
> And we know that the XSLT works 'cos we've tested it till the cows come 
> home [5]. So it isn't clear to me that this is a POWDER problem.
> 
> If you have an alternative GRDDL app available, I'd be grateful if you'd 
> run that and see what you get.

I get the same error, and I don't see why.

Dom, would you please take a look?

>  If there is a problem then, of course, we 
> want to fix it. NB: there's a LOT of complexity here:
> 
> The namespace http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder# resolves to
> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder.wdr.xsd which is the file that includes 
> the data-view:transformation link to 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder2powderBase.xsl.
> 
> But, the schema imports others, notably the POWDER-BASE schema 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder/wdrb.xsd which in turn includes a 
> data-view transform link to the second XSLT 
> (http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powderBase2powderS.xsl) since POWDER to 
> POWDER-S is a two-stage process.
> 
> Any advice you can offer would be most welcome.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder2powderBase.xsl
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powderBase2powderS.xsl
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-powder-test-20090403/tests/grddl_tests/powder002.xml
> [4] http://tinyurl.com/dk9omn
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/features.html#table6
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > In our 23 apr meeting*, the TAG reviewed my comment about
> > the testcases not working:
> >   powder-test/grddl/powder002.xml is 404?
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0006.html
> > 
> > and decided to endorse it. It's hard for us to review POWDER
> > with the test materials in their present state.
> > 
> > Is there some way of using the test materials in their present
> > state that we're just not aware of? Or are they actually broken
> > and in need of a fix?
> > 
> > 
> > * minutes pending; draft in member space:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Apr/att-0051/23-minutes.html
> > 
> > p.s. tracker, this is re ACTION-262
> > 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 13:37:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:14 GMT