W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: test case changes

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:02:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4E845058.8030108@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 28/09/11 23:01, Gregory Williams wrote:
> I'd like to make three changes to test suite files, and wanted to run
> them by the group.
>
> 1.
>
> In test csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv03 I'd like to change the lexical
> form used in the CSV results file (csvtsv03.csv) and the source data
> file (data2.ttl) for the xsd:double value to use canonical form
> (changing from "1.0e6" to "1.0E6"). While this doesn't totally solve
> the problem of the csv serialization being lossy and making
> value-based comparisons difficult, if we're going to choose to use
> either canonical or non-canonical form, I think canonical form is the
> better choice to allow canonicalizing implementations to more easily
> pass the test.

Fine by me.

>
> 2.
>
> I'd like to remove test service/manifest#service5 from the manifest
> list as it tests the "SERVICE ?var" form that I believe we've
> resolved not to specify. An alternative would be to mark this test
> with an mf:requires and mint a new IRI to represent the
> variable-endpoint extension.

The proposal to make (service) a binary operator woudl address teh key 
issue.

>
> 3.
>
> I'd like to change the SERVICE manifest to mark federation tests as
> using the service "feature", not marking it as a "requirement" with
> mf:requires:
>
> -       mf:requires mf:BasicFederation ;
 > +       mf:feature sd:BasicFederatedQuery ;
>
> This change is based on mf:requires being used historically as a way
> to indicate a test that requires some optional feature of the
> implementation (thus making the test optional w.r.t. conformance).
> However, we've now split the test suite into conformance requirements
> on a per-spec basis (in manifest-all.ttl), and I believe the service
> tests should be considered required tests for conformance to the
> Federation Extension spec.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on these changes?

Both?

Running everything and running per-spec make sense.  manifest-all.ttl

If you want to stress the per-spec natural, let's have one manifest 
per-spec and make manifest-all.ttl include each area manifest.

	Andy

>
> thanks, .greg
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 11:03:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT