W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Example protocol test

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:50:24 +0100
To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050810125024.GA20788@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:07:17 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 
> Steve Harris wrote:
> >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~swh/protocol-tests/data/construct/
> >
> >A step towards completing 'ACTION SteveH: elaborate "CONSTRUCT with content
> >negotiation" into a test case'
> >
> >I've not run it, and in particular the data is just back-extrapolated from
> >the query and results, so it might not be as intended.
> >
> >There is no schema for the manifest yet, I'l write one if its deemed
> >acceptable.
> >
> >PS Kendall, in this example in the protocol doc. revision 1.57 theres not
> >   enough escaping in the query.
> >
> >- Steve
> >
> 
> A test is modelled as name/action/result where action is often a pair of 
> query and data file.  This split could be used here:
> 
> 	rdfs:label "CONSTRUCT with content negotiation" ;
> 	mf:action [
> 		ptest:data <conneg-data.rq> ;
>                 ptest:query <conneg-query.rq> ;
> 	     	ptest:acceptType "text/rdf+n3, application/rdf+xml" ;
>     		ptest:defaultGraph <http://my.example/jose/foaf.rdf> ;
>                   ] ;
> 
>         mf:result [
> 		ptest:preferredResult [ ... ] ; 			 
> 		ptest:compliantResult [ ....] ;
> 		ptest:compliantResult [ ....] ;
>                   ] ;

I can see that grouping the action under a single node makes things
clearer, but adding a level of indirenction to the results seems a bit
pointless.

Anyway, I'll go with whatever most people prefer.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 12:51:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT