W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:37:25 -0500
Message-ID: <50D46615.1000403@thefigtrees.net>
To: birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I think the path of least resistance is to leave them in as NotClassified...

Lee

On 12/21/2012 5:30 AM, Birte Glimm wrote:
> I'm not sure what to do with the two extra RIF tests. They are not
> wrong, but test non-normative features. For the OWL WG we had optional
> tests (ExtraCreditTests), so we could use something similar here,
> leave them as NotClassified or remove them. I'm ok with all three
> options, although I would prefer keeping them, e.g., as extra credit
> or non-normative tests.
>
> Birte
>
> On 20 December 2012 19:41, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
>> Agree. The test should not have been marked approved.
>>
>> Le
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2012 1:29 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> - As I mentioned, the temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1 test is
>>>> marked as approved, but commented out of the manifest list. I'm not sure
>>>> what to do with it.
>>> After digging into this a bit deeper, I think this was my fault. The test
>>> was approve here:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-31#resolution_3
>>>
>>> That resolution says "approve all non-approved test cases at
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/#sparql11-query". The state of
>>> the implementation report at the time of that resolution is in CVS at r1.10,
>>> and does *not* contain the temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1 test.
>>> However, given the resolution text, I believe I went to the manifest and
>>> marked all tests in the file as approved, regardless of whether they had
>>> been commented out in the manifest list (which
>>> temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1 had).
>>>
>>> So unless somebody objects, I'm going to remove the approval status from
>>> that test (as it never should have been there in the first place), and then
>>> adjust my working patch of the test suite to remove that test completely
>>> (pending group approval on cleaning up the test suite of non-approved
>>> tests).
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> .greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 December 2012 13:37:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT