- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:31:08 -0500
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- CC: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Feb 21, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 February 2013 12:45, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >>> You may want to test against the new tests also [6], as the tests at >>> [7] do not test all of the features in the Candidate Recommendation. >> >> Thanks for the pointer! >> Do the new ones obsolete the old tests or should I test both? > > It can't hurt to test against both if you want to have backwards > compatibility with existing Turtle documents. However, there are no > references to either test suite in the current Candidate > Recommendation so it is not completely clear what to do at this stage. > For what it is worth, the original submission tests are also in the > mercurial repository at [8]. The two test manifests to run to show compliance with the CR Turtle spec are at [1] and [2]. If you provide EARL reports for either or both of these, they will be included in the compliance report. EARL reports should also include project DOAP information including the following: doap:name, doap:developer, doap:homepage, doap:description and doap:programming-language. Additionally, for the developer, foaf:name and foaf:homepage. An example of a previous run of the consolodated EARL report (just for the base tests) at [3]. [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/tests-ttl/manifest.ttl [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/manifest.ttl [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html Gregg > Cheers, > > Peter > > [8] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/4d5ebf0ba10f/rdf-turtle/tests-submission >
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 06:31:50 UTC