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

Re: Changes to test/implementation report URIs

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:56:59 +0100
Message-ID: <52FD319B.1070809@vu.nl>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>


On 13-02-14 21:34, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>
> 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
>>>> 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?
>
> 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.

OK, will change it accordingly, and place the implementation-report link 
for Concepts in SOTD.

Guus

>
> Gregg
>
>>>> 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 20:57:28 UTC

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