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

Re: Changes to test/implementation report URIs

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:34:11 -0800
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <460A9962-D2E7-4EC8-A05A-9AABDD0FC41B@greggkellogg.net>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>

On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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
>> 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?

So, I cal live with each having a test site link to RDF11-TESTCASES, but have a link to it's specific implementation report. For Concepts, either use the implementation report link to RDF11-TESTCASES, or place it in the SOTD as Markus suggests.


>>> 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 20:34:41 UTC

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