W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2014

RE: Changes to test/implementation report URIs

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:41:02 +0100
To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011d01cf28f3$89245f60$9b6d1e20$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:24 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> On 13-02-14 20:11, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:38 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> >>> On 12-02-14 21:52, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >>>> Also, Guus removed the test-suite location from the header of each
> >>>> spec, and replaced the implementation report with a reference to
> >>>> the rdf11-testcases doc. If anything, I think I would change that
> >>>> to be the generic test-suite location, and either restore the
> >>>> implementation report to the actual implementation report location
> >>>> for that spec, or just leave it out.
> >>>
> >>> OK, fine with that. So, these will be the locations I'll put in the
> >> files:
> >>>
> >>> Concepts:
> >>>   Needs to have an impl report; suggest we link to the Testcases
> Note
> >>> Semantics
> >>>   test suite: http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-tests/
> >>>   impl report: http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-reports/index.html
> > [...]
> >>
> >> +1 Works for me.
> >
> > Sorry, but wasn't the whole reason to create the RDF11-TESTCASES
> document to
> > have everything in one place? So, why don't we just link from each
> document
> > to RDF11-TESTCASES?
> 
> That was indeed my preference, but I can also live with Gregg's
> proposal.  I suggest you two reach a consensus.  Either way is fine for
> me.

I think what Gregg said was to

   s/Implementation report/Test suite/

in each document's header (pointing to RDF11-TESTCASES) and either adding a
direct link to the implementation report corresponding to the spec at hand
or leaving it out. My preference would be to leave it out.

Gregg, is that what you proposed?


> > Also, referencing an "Implementation report" from the header of Concepts
> > looks very weird to me given that Concepts isn't implementable. IMO
> > it should be removed.
> 
> Pubrules requires a link to an implementation report. The Test Cases

It doesn't have to be in the header though. The "Please see the Working
Group's implementation report" in the SOTD is enough.


> document is exactly the right link for Concepts, I think. See the
> explicit remark:
> 
> [[
>    RDF 1.1 Concepts [RDF11-CONCEPTS] does not have a test suite and is
> not directly implemented in software; instead, it is implemented by the
> specs which build on it, including the other specs in this set.
> ]]

I know, I added it.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 19:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:19 UTC