Re: Merging and improving the Turtle test suite(s)

On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 10:34 -0500, Gregory Williams wrote:
> I'm joining this conversation (and work towards implementing the new
> turtle) rather late, but I had similar problems to David. Base URI
> resolution has often thrown me in the past, but I had problems passing
> some turtle tests based just on what the docs say.
> 
> I found the claim that "the assumed base URI for the tests is
> <http://example/base/> if needed" to be very confusing, as I understand
> it to *always* be needed, but that the resolution rules require that
> the base URI used when parsing is based on both this URI (which these
> docs call the "assumed base URI," but which RFC 3986 calls "default
> base URI") and also the "URI used to retrieve the entity" (in this case
> the relative URI of the turtle document being parsed). If that's
> correct, I think the language used to introduce this default base URI
> should be improved to use language that aligns with RFC 3986 and to
> remove the phrase "if needed".

Perhaps of interest, though I don't know how suitable in scope such a
thing is for the suite, is a Turtle version of the examples from
RFC3986.  This tests the relative URI resolution of implementations.

Attached is one I made for my implementation's test suite which includes
all the normal examples, some of the abnormal examples, and some
additional stuff to cover specific cases.

Note the owl:sameAs used here may not be strictly correct, it seemed
sensible but doesn't really mean anything.  This is a simple
triple-based .ttl => .nt test like the others.

Cheers,

-dr