W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: Test cases

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:56:02 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9B2C5DF@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>

Now, please!

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Geoff Chappell <mailto:geoff@sover.net>
> Date: 25 May 2005 15:14
> 
> Thanks, Andy, those work better now :-)
> 
> BTW, I have a few differing results with some tests that involve
> unbound vars in filters. Would you like me to report my differences
now
> or things still in flux in that area?  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Seaborne, Andy [mailto:andy.seaborne@hp.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:56 AM
> > To: Geoff Chappell
> > Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Test cases
> > 
> > Geoff,
> > 
> > I have fixed the dateTimes and also the manifest problem in your
> > other message. 
> > 
> > 	Thanks
> > 	Andy
> > 
> > 
> > Geoff Chappell wrote:
> > > I notice in a few test cases - e.g:
> > > 
> > > 	sparql-query-example-Testing-Values-0
> > > 	sparql-query-example-Testing-Values-1
> > > 
> > > that seemingly invalid dateTimes are used:
> > > 
> > > 	xsd:dateTime("2005-01-01T00:00Z")
> > > 
> > > (i.e. seconds aren't optional are they?)
> > > 
> > > Is this an error in the test case or does it imply that the
> > > xsd:dateTime function is supposed to be liberal in what it
accepts?
> > > 
> > > Also, BTW, I think those particular two tests would be clearer if
> > > they didn't used bnodes as subjects.
> > > 
> > > - Geoff
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 08:56:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT