- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:40:42 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> 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. Ah. Sorry, I didn't remember that we're still considering a big change like that. I'll leave this test as-is for now. >> 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. If we did both, we'd still need a way to distinguish tests required for conformance (e.g. to the federation spec) and those that are optional by the fact of having one or more requirements (marked with mf:requires). .greg
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 00:41:47 UTC