- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:34:16 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 23:29, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>> >>> These tests bring up the issue of how we test extensions. I think >>> all >>> we can do is test the bare language, writing tests that appear to >>> label an extended implementation as "failed". >> >> Right - these tests were written to capture "="/"!=" on both known >> and >> unknown types, and what happens when an extension datatype is >> known. Not >> all the tests will be appropriate in the code DAWG test suite. >> >> For testing extensions, how about separating the tests out into a >> separate >> area? At least, have different manifest files so that an >> implementation >> can pick up the manifests and run the appropriate ones. > > I prefer labeling these tests in the manifest, ala: > > [ mf:name "date-1" ; > rdfs:comment "Added type : xsd:date '='" ; > mf:action > [ qt:query <date-1.rq> ; > qt:data <data-3.ttl> ] ; > mf:result <date-1-result.srx> ; > mf:requires xsd:date +1 - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:34:36 UTC